| Author |
Message |
|
Matthew Amt
|
 Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 5:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Peteris R. wrote: | | What about the English longbowmen slaughtering French knights time and time again until full plate was introduced? I find it hard to believe that they could only achieve penetration at "relatively close ranges". |
As I understand it, if the longbowmen were not protected by stakes and dismounted knights, they got overrun by French cavalry.
Just as a nod to the original post, and to reiterate a point we've made a few times in this thread, if mail was indeed such a lousy defense, why didn't all the (presumably few) survivors of all those massacres switch to scale and lamellar? Why was mail THE most common form of armor for 1500 years?
Matthew
|
|
   |
 |
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Matt,
Not always. In fact it is not until later in the Hundred Years War that this is happening on a common basis to trust as a tactic as a mainstay. It is tried mid 14th century on several tries and ends with piles of dead horses. Even with stakes not always an issue as a large part of the Agincourt line of stakes come down but the archers still shoot them apart and they are protected by neither. Some like to think the increase in plate armour was the key... I am not sure. I think one of the main things is something Boucicault has it right.... do not send cavalry right at archers but around them. If you hit them on the side or rear they cannot focus much or any of their arrows on you.
That said generally this is true. At Crecy without men at arms the battle would have been far different. As well at Agincourt the majority of the stakes seem to hold. But just like anything there are transitions and exceptions.
I think the issue is we are focused on archery when it was not a primary os singular form of warfare. Fighting other weapons like one handed spears and slashing weapons was more common muhc of the Medieval Period. Most estimates for archers in Early Medieval armies were less than 10% hardly going to change the battle alone. Truth is maille was not lousy only our perception of what was needed in armour and combat.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Gary,
Williams testing pretty patchy for this topic. First we need to all realize he a bodkin that was not the one we are speaking about. So we need to sort out type 7s from 10s. As well His testing was using low quality arms which should not surprise the results. |
Yes, Randall, the lack of using a true bodkin head I would think made a difference in the results of testing. I think what williams used was closest to a "short bodkin". That's really my point though - the bodkin would have been able to penetrate up to a certain length of the mail without breaking or deforming any links. But it seems as though penetrating/breaking links requires much force from Williams testing.
I guess the one true question, how does a bodkin head, or similar arrows (there were many arrowheads that were similar to a bodkin used throughout the mail period) effect the required joulles to fully penetrate mail armour?
| Quote: | | As well His testing was using low quality arms which should not surprise the results. |
What about the arms were low quality? I had not heard this before.
| Quote: | | also these are 10th century arrowheads unless im mistaken there is very little to no evidence of dedicated gambesons or padded armour among the scandinavians or kievan rus in that period |
This is a tough issue. True, we have little evidence one way or another regarding padded gambeson type garments. We do have a 10th Century Irish description of a 27 layered linen tunic, and there is evedence of the Byzantine Bombakion around this time. The Rus traded and fought against with and for the Byzantines during this period.
I tend to think layered garments were commonly worn during this time, but that is merely an opinion of course.
| Quote: | | also when I suggested this thing of a gambeson or felt over maile to resist bodkins bede dwyer, something of an expert on eastern archery in australia told me that tests showed a gambeson showed no real resistance to a bodkin, however i didnt get to ask about the nature of this test so it could be flawed. |
William, I have seen the opposite, the bodkins don't penetrate textiles well, but a "cutting" arrowhead penetrates textile armour much easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peteris R.
Location: Latvia Joined: 11 Apr 2012
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Augusto Boer Bront wrote: | | In fact they didn't. They killed or disbanded the horses and stopped the charges. |
At Agincourt the vast majority of the French army fought on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What about the English longbowmen slaughtering French knights time and time again until full plate was introduced? I find it hard to believe that they could only achieve penetration at "relatively close ranges". |
At crecy, much of the French attempts to charge the line were on horseback. Horses had varying degrees of armour, many with little or none. Killing horse not only kills men but clutters and disrupts a charge.
Secondly, they were going uphill, and there were prepared defenses, again disrupting any charge.
first of all the horses were killed at range - secondly proceeding slowly through obstacles AND being at very close range is going to cause injuries and fatalities.
Now, to use your logic, when Full plate was invented, and the French were predominantly on foot (having learned cavalry against archers in prepared positions is not a good idea), they should have had great sucess, right? I mean Plate stops the arrows, so they should chopped the English to pieces I guess?
It's more than just whether or not arrows pierce armour. Tramping through apparently a mud pit, they were extremely fatigued. Then they go again through prepared defenses, and into not only archers but prepared English melee troops. Through some battlefield mistake, they charged in almost a narrow line directly at the men at arms, leaving the archers to fall on their flanks.
| Quote: | | I find it hard to believe that they could only achieve penetration at "relatively close ranges". |
One more thing to add - Early Cavaliers pistols could only penetrate at a relatively close range, but they certainly caused fatalities did they not? Or the Roman Pilum?
And when I say "relatively close ranges" I'm thinking somewhere in the realm of 25-100 yards as a rough idea.
Last edited by Gary Teuscher on Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | Kurt Scholz wrote: | | So very small plates with good padding would reduce arrow impact most? Mail would seem somehow equivalent if you master the issue of rings not being destroyed upon impact. |
"Destroyed" how? Sure, sometimes rings broke, and sometimes an arrow could break enough rings to penetrate significantly (i.e., enough to wound or kill). This certainly doesn't seem to be the rule!
| Peteris R. wrote: | | But that's the problem, isn't it - the rings get pierced more easily than plates. Which would mean that lamellar and scale are superior. |
But we don't know at all that the rings are "pierced more easily than plates"--presumably you mean the *mail* is pierced more easily? Much remaining Roman scale armor is frightfully thin, and it has to be because all the overlap means the weight adds up very quickly. Sure, you can make a scale thick enough to keep out any arrow, but make a shirt of that and it will weigh several times what an average mailshirt weighs. With the thinnest scales I've seen, you can pretty easily drive a point through any one scale, or fold it in half with 2 fingers. It relies on overlapping layers to protect, and it's already bulkier and less flexible than a comparatively protective shirt of mail.
Matthew |
There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
Interesting. Any idea as to the percentage of overlap?
It's either 1mm on a scale without overlapp, or 2mm with overlap then. Rather thin I think compared to breastplates of that time?
|
|
|
|
|
Bartek Strojek
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peteris R. wrote: | | Augusto Boer Bront wrote: | | In fact they didn't. They killed or disbanded the horses and stopped the charges. |
At Agincourt the vast majo rench army fought on foot. |
At Agincourt, those who were solidly armored would be also plate armored. Mail was generally secondary armor by then.
Anyway, as mentioned many times, trying to guess "armor --- weapon" relation based on results of battles with thousands of different factors is not really possible.
We know that Frenchmen got stopped, completely disorganized and effectively destroyed due to combination of many different things.
We know that arrows had probably injured many men, but nothing certain about armor penetration, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jojo Zerach wrote: | | [There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
1mm is very thick for scale armour. Matt is right that the vast majority of extant scale armour is a lot thinner than this. 1mm scale would not be appropriate for anything except for reconstructing this particular example. I am not familiar with this example but my first guess is that it is only 1mm thick because it is heavily corroded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Peteris R. wrote: | | Gary Teuscher wrote: | | So IMO, as long as there is not a weak or corroded link, penetration is difficult and will only be achived by longbows at 150+ draws at relatively close ranges, or the heaviest crossbows at similar range, those that require more than just a belt hook to draw. |
What about the English longbowmen slaughtering French knights time and time again until full plate was introduced? I find it hard to believe that they could only achieve penetration at "relatively close ranges". |
Look at the numbers from the great English "archery victories":
Crecy, 1346: About 8000 archers on the English side, the French lost about 2000 men-at-arms, and an unrecorded number of unarmoured infantry. That's 2000 men-at-arms out of about 12000. Most archers in this battle did not kill a single knight or other man-at-arms.
Poitiers, 1356: About 2000 archers, who shot almost all of their arrows. That's about 40,000 arrows, by archers who are quite accurate, and can should be able to reliably hit man-sized targets. French had about 2500 killed and wounded. Most arrows did not kill or wound.
These battles were against largely mail-protected men-at-arms. Then we have the following battle, with much plate armour:
Agincourt, 1415: About 6000 archers, about 7000 French dead, a few thousand of which would be the result of the English killing their prisoners.
Again, similar maximum possible killing rates by the archers: less than 1 each. If arrows went through French armour easily, why are there so few French deaths? If mail is especially bad armour, why are losses at Agincourt, with better armour, similar?
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Timo,
We need to get away from the Agincourt prisoner killings as where the major or even a large number of deaths comes from. This is just not supported by evidence, from now or then. Anne Curry has made it real easy to see the trend. Open her book to the back and it becomes clear any one pushing this has ulterior motives. Few contemporary accounts put many, let alone most of these killed at the time of the massacre. Even French accounts. The number is likely only in the hundreds. Out of the dozens of accounts there are about 3 that state this. Several of which have many key aspects of the battle rather confused and clearly not as good as the eye witnesses accounts. Looking at the total dead this number is not something we should ignore, but was only a small percent of them.
Further By Crecy and especially Poitiers plate armour was way common for men at arms.... not head to toe but way common. In fact it was required in English law for men at arms to be largely covered in plate- mail is not even mentioned most of the time, though it comes up very often in inventories. Now for armed men and other infantry and troops mail was likely more common as stand alones without plate but the information is highly clear that English men at arms we largely using plate by this point. By the 1330s Edward III has aketons, plate gaunts and pairs of plates and bascinet as minimum requirements. With in a few years they are required for footmen and archers to have pairs of plate. There was a great deal of plate by the start of the 100 Years War.
That said I think your point remains. Most arrow strikes were not kills, perhaps not even knocking guys out of the battle. I figure some men at arms looked like pin cushions by the time the crossed the field. That said this is likely true for most weapons. The Wisby finds indicate several strikes and a kill being common.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Jojo Zerach wrote: | | [There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
1mm is very thick for scale armour. Matt is right that the vast majority of extant scale armour is a lot thinner than this. 1mm scale would not be appropriate for anything except for reconstructing this particular example. I am not familiar with this example but my first guess is that it is only 1mm thick because it is heavily corroded. |
Considering how this find seems to have been constructed, 1mm thickness seems appropriate. It is different from most ancient scale finds not only in the size of the scales, but also the fact that they didn't overlap side-to-side. (That area instead being covered by the scale above it.)
Here you can download the article detailing the find:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&...RIS2DP4E4g
(Note the thickness measurements were taken from the best preserved scales.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
Interesting. Any idea as to the percentage of overlap?
It's either 1mm on a scale without overlapp, or 2mm with overlap then. Rather thin I think compared to breastplates of that time? |
You can see more details in the link above, but the amount of overlap seems less than in ancient scale armour. The scales were also riveted to a backing, as opposed to being sewn. (Although they may have been riveted to strips of material that were in turn sewn to the backing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
They might also have been armor for the horse rather than for the rider.
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | Gary,
Williams testing pretty patchy for this topic. First we need to all realize he a bodkin that was not the one we are speaking about. So we need to sort out type 7s from 10s. As well His testing was using low quality arms which should not surprise the results. |
Yes, Randall, the lack of using a true bodkin head I would think made a difference in the results of testing. I think what williams used was closest to a "short bodkin". That's really my point though - the bodkin would have been able to penetrate up to a certain length of the mail without breaking or deforming any links. But it seems as though penetrating/breaking links requires much force from Williams testing.
I guess the one true question, how does a bodkin head, or similar arrows (there were many arrowheads that were similar to a bodkin used throughout the mail period) effect the required joulles to fully penetrate mail armour?
| Quote: | | As well His testing was using low quality arms which should not surprise the results. |
What about the arms were low quality? I had not heard this before.
| Quote: | | also these are 10th century arrowheads unless im mistaken there is very little to no evidence of dedicated gambesons or padded armour among the scandinavians or kievan rus in that period |
This is a tough issue. True, we have little evidence one way or another regarding padded gambeson type garments. We do have a 10th Century Irish description of a 27 layered linen tunic, and there is evedence of the Byzantine Bombakion around this time. The Rus traded and fought against with and for the Byzantines during this period.
I tend to think layered garments were commonly worn during this time, but that is merely an opinion of course.
| Quote: | | also when I suggested this thing of a gambeson or felt over maile to resist bodkins bede dwyer, something of an expert on eastern archery in australia told me that tests showed a gambeson showed no real resistance to a bodkin, however i didnt get to ask about the nature of this test so it could be flawed. |
William, I have seen the opposite, the bodkins don't penetrate textiles well, but a "cutting" arrowhead penetrates textile armour much easier. |
the byzantine 'bambakion', although if memory serves kavadion is the more correct term, whhich was a padded garment, along with the epilorikion which was a quilted garment that was meant to go OVER the top of metallic armour, this was mostly used by heavier troops in the cavalry, the kavadion was, to my understanding the STANDARD ISSUE protection for infantry. According to the military manuals, every infantryman in the rank and file had at least this for the protection of his body not counting shields and a thick felt cap.
(aside possibly from the light skirmishers armed with javelins and maybe slings who were likely completely unarmoured aside from the thick cap and probably a small shield of some description)
the rus did trade with, fight against AND serve the byzantines during the 10th century in various points of history, more or less in that order. and even somewhat earlier but theres not a whole heap of evidence of the kavadion moving upwards and becoming the armour of the rus at any sort of significant rate its use doesnt feature in A N Kirpitchnikovs 3 articles in 1966 and 1971 on rus arms and armour. i think it might be a stretch to say that mercenaries in byzantine service would be routinely issued a kavadion as well,
but ill double check this and see what comes up.
my point is in the 10th century at least it was rare and as ive mentioned in another thread it seems the rus had a lot less money and resources to consistantly equip the militia and such troops to the level of the gear required of the anglo saxon fyrdsmen ( apparently freemen needed to have aquired a helmet of all things for service in the fyrd)
but even if it wasnt rare for men in the viking period to have a gambeson of some sort, from the finds of 10th century arrowheads as well as both 11th and 9th century arrowheads, broadheads make up the majority of finds.
Narrow bodkin like arrowheads, by contrast are relatively rare which as i said above is correlated with the scarcity of maile in that period
im well aware of the fact that viking age armour was a lot less extensive than armour even 100 years later
but i think those bodkins were heads kept and used for specific purposes and not simply as flight arrows, im curious whats the longest and narrowest needle bodkins you guys have seen.
http://fairbow.nl/ if you look at the arrowheads they sell page 5 item number 59 youll see a pair of extremely long and narrow bodkins. if there were merely flight arrows they wouldnt be as long as they are, would they?
i cant help but thing that these arrowheads got long and narrow specifically to increase the chance that the head would slip through the links in the maile.
also heres the interesting part.. ill ask my friends where to find the image, it but suffice to say theres a byzantine fresco that shows a man with a bow and quiver with the arrows stored point upward, and what it showed was a large variety of arrowheads which makes sense
i can just imagine an archer looking at the men hes approaching and going 'hmm, gambeson', before pulling out a broadhead and sending it on its way* then later seeing a bunch of knights approach, sees the maile and instead pulls out a bodkin of some sort and sends it on its way.
also regarding lamellar, it is EXTREMELY vulnerable to successive hits by arrows and stuff due to the lacing, one of the guys here (off the top of my head i cant remember who) did a test and found that while lamellar will stop arrowheads fairly easily, the lacing very quickly gets cut up and begins to quickly compromise the structural integrity of the armour by leavinggaps
its unsurprising considering that alone that most scale and lamellar using cultures later on turned to plated maile around the 14th century onwards in various forms and amounts all the way from russia to egypt to japan.
metal maile links dont harbour bugs and mud, cant be sliced up by slashing blows and cutting arrowheads. easily and can be easily repaired in the field with a piece of wire or even leather thonging in a pinch.. they can rust but thats easy to remedy.
id be willing to bet there was many a time when a cavalryman or other heavy trooper stopped for a moment during a lull in the fighting, DURING the course of the battle, looked down to realise a sword/ lance/ axe/ arrow etc had broken or damaged a link or two, reached into his saddle bag, grabbed a piece of leather thonging, and quickly used it to draw the hole closed by threading it through a few links,
lastly, regarding bede dwyers comments to me about bodkins easily piercing against padded armour/ gambesons/ aketons the fact that all the evidence ive seen here suggests a layer of padding over maile would severely hamper a bodkins ability to hurt the maile, is precisely why i mentioned it to him im going to eventually send him an email asking for more details.
 Attachment: 41.91 KB
http://fairbow.nl/ arrowhead number 59 (page 5 of arrowhead catalogue) theres no scale to show their length but im guessing these things are pretty slim and pretty long. especially if we assume that it acceps your standard longbow arrow shaft width we can
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mart Shearer wrote: | | Quote: | | There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
They might also have been armor for the horse rather than for the rider. |
horse armour was VERY rarely of scale in western europe, at all much less so around the renaissance, (scale barding was however used by other cultures alot further east and in much earlier time periods like byzantine and sassanid cataphracts sarmation and later khazar and rus heavy cavalry did use scale more often. most barding had been for quite some time, either maile or fullly plate based by the time of columbus, the full horse barding of large plates at that point had become increasingly widespread..
where in the new world was it found? mexico, peru, new england, california?
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2012 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Many thanks for the article. After reading it I agree with Mart that horse armour is a strong possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Len Parker
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2012 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I've only seen a few examples of medieval scales and they were the same thickness as plate. The same goes for brigs. Here is some 6.5 by 3.5cm 1.5mm thick scales. Looks like 9th-10thc. Not sure where these are from http://www.tgorod.ru/index.php?topgroupid=2&a...ntentid=36
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mart Shearer
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2012 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | Mart Shearer wrote: | | Quote: | | There was a find of medieval/renaissance scale armour in the new world, and well preserved scales were about 1mm thick. But the scales were also larger than most roman scales, so the thicker metal would be more appropriate. |
They might also have been armor for the horse rather than for the rider. |
horse armour was VERY rarely of scale in western europe, at all much less so around the renaissance, (scale barding was however used by other cultures alot further east and in much earlier time periods like byzantine and sassanid cataphracts sarmation and later khazar and rus heavy cavalry did use scale more often. most barding had been for quite some time, either maile or fullly plate based by the time of columbus, the full horse barding of large plates at that point had become increasingly widespread..
where in the new world was it found? mexico, peru, new england, california? |
Very rare perhaps, but not unknown.
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_ana_charlesv.html
Real Armeria Inv. A 37 has the scale throat defense (not a crinet, but a ?) made of scales with two rivets each. The find was in New Mexico, with attempts to tie it to Coronado's c.1540 expedition, though they could be more recent. Coronado had barding for four horses, reported to be full plate, but the scale defenses of A 37 complement plate barding.
http://mysite.verizon.net/calderonscompany/coromuster.html
ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 29 Aug, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I find interesting is that it's often said that quilt was worn under mail to protect from blunt trauma, also to keep the links from being driven into the body.
It seems two overlooked and just as important reasons for it that has been shown by testing is to greatly enhance it's ability to resist penetrating attacks, and prhaps even more overlooked to prevent acute points from sliding between links without truly the mail from injuring the wearer beneath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic