| Author |
Message |
|
Pieter B.
|
 Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 6:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks again for all the replies guys!
Joe,
The comment on the visor is really interesting, I heard that peripheral vision wasn't all that great but that it was okay besides that. What kind of a visor are you talking about, one that covers your full face or only the top bit like a sallet?
John Hardy,
That's a good point I hadn't considered yet. Frankly since I joined this forum I had the impression that plate armor is impervious to sword blows. Perhaps the info in these papers challenges that assumption or perhaps they had more effective cutting weapons that we haven't tested against armor of the day.
If anything I find it quite interesting to see a recurring pattern of healed head injuries in 7th century Angelo Saxons, 8th century Italians, 15th century English and late 15th century Germans. Besides showing us that those types of wound were survivable it might tell us something about the protective capabilities of helmets.
Testing sword and polearms against unarmored heads at various impact energies to simulate weak and strong blows could shed some light on this. If swords and such penetrate the skull even with weak blows and the end result is that near 100% of blows went through the skull than the 40% non penetrative blows on the bodies found in the grave might indeed be ascribed to the protective headgear they had worn.
This definitely deserves some research.
Vasilly,
You are right we shouldn't write off the possibility of cleaving through helmets yet.
The wounds being from a civilian brawl is possible but I doubt the percentage of people having them would be so high. In the Uppsala grave only 2 out of 60 showed healed head injury which according to the author could indicate that these weren't combat veterans. In Towton and Dornach we're looking at a third to a fifth of the soldiers having previous injuries.
Jared,
In Towton many did indeed have puncturing wounds which have been identified as arrow, poleaxe and dagger wounds. In the Dornach grave the vast majority of wounds were cutting/cleaving wounds.
If it is indeed the case that all those blows were on incapacitated victims than the large percentage of soldiers with healed head wounds is difficult to explain.
All in all I think that maybe we should put less effort in test number 105: longbow arrows against plate armor and perform tests on helmets and bare heads, any volunteers? 
|
|
  |
 |
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | Thanks again for all the replies guys!
Vasilly,
You are right we shouldn't write off the possibility of cleaving through helmets yet.
The wounds being from a civilian brawl is possible but I doubt the percentage of people having them would be so high. In the Uppsala grave only 2 out of 60 showed healed head injury which according to the author could indicate that these weren't combat veterans. In Towton and Dornach we're looking at a third to a fifth of the soldiers having previous injuries.
|
Those were violent times, and if those men were willing to serve in army, then they were most likely violent people and thus very likely to get in a brawl quite often. But yeah, I've already said that was kind of a long shot, so better concentrate on other points, luckily(or not?) there were a lot of them raised in this thread.
| Quote: | | All in all I think that maybe we should put less effort in test number 105: longbow arrows against plate armor and perform tests on helmets and bare heads, any volunteers? Wink |
I would love to see a test like that. Even more if it included studies of the blunt traumas from non-penetrating blows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hardy
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | Something to consider other than the receipt of the head wounds under consideration here as ocuring during mobile combat, is the possibility that the victims were "finished off" while incapacitated. Where numerous accounts of sharp skull punctures, and multiple punctures on the same skulls are described in a battlefield grave site, I tend to suspect that the soldiers were executed in a fairly easy manner with club blows to the head. I thought one of the above illustrations shows peasants bashing fallen soldiers. I am not sure where I read the account of the town militia being trained to use staves and pikes for the battle of the golden spurs, but seemed to recall that the high death rate there was actually due to boys and towns people restraining and finishing off the fallen soldiers. In tournament era the kippers were only supposed to knock opponents unconscious, but the name "kipper" is telling... |
This is something I referred to earlier (In point 3 on my first post) but apparently I used the wrong term for the troops I meant. I called them Coustilliers. According to Peter B, Coustilliers were mounted soldiers who protected mounted archers. I thought they were the lightly armed skirmishers and "throat cutters" who, once the main battle was joined, skulked along behind the main shield or pike line and finished off any stunned and downed enemies before they could recover enough to become a threat from behind. Obviously, the main hallmark of such operators is going to be cut throats or bashed in heads...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Hardy wrote: | | Jared Smith wrote: | | Something to consider other than the receipt of the head wounds under consideration here as ocuring during mobile combat, is the possibility that the victims were "finished off" while incapacitated. Where numerous accounts of sharp skull punctures, and multiple punctures on the same skulls are described in a battlefield grave site, I tend to suspect that the soldiers were executed in a fairly easy manner with club blows to the head. I thought one of the above illustrations shows peasants bashing fallen soldiers. I am not sure where I read the account of the town militia being trained to use staves and pikes for the battle of the golden spurs, but seemed to recall that the high death rate there was actually due to boys and towns people restraining and finishing off the fallen soldiers. In tournament era the kippers were only supposed to knock opponents unconscious, but the name "kipper" is telling... |
This is something I referred to earlier (In point 3 on my first post) but apparently I used the wrong term for the troops I meant. I called them Coustilliers. According to Peter B, Coustilliers were mounted soldiers who protected mounted archers. I thought they were the lightly armed skirmishers and "throat cutters" who, once the main battle was joined, skulked along behind the main shield or pike line and finished off any stunned and downed enemies before they could recover enough to become a threat from behind. Obviously, the main hallmark of such operators is going to be cut throats or bashed in heads... |
Well I heard the term being translated as dagger-man but their armament doesn't seem to resemble that of a lightly armed skirmisher.
We briefly covered the topic in this thread: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...p;start=40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | Thanks again for all the replies guys!
Joe,
The comment on the visor is really interesting, I heard that peripheral vision wasn't all that great but that it was okay besides that. What kind of a visor are you talking about, one that covers your full face or only the top bit like a sallet?
|
Sallet visor, even without the bevor. Now, its import to remember that I'm qualifying this with "my experience" which is a) limited and b) perhaps unique to me. So it is a perspective, but one that really does need additional comment from other people with more experience before its taken as anything more than a single observation.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | Thanks again for all the replies guys!
Joe,
The comment on the visor is really interesting, I heard that peripheral vision wasn't all that great but that it was okay besides that. What kind of a visor are you talking about, one that covers your full face or only the top bit like a sallet?
|
Sallet visor, even without the bevor. Now, its import to remember that I'm qualifying this with "my experience" which is a) limited and b) perhaps unique to me. So it is a perspective, but one that really does need additional comment from other people with more experience before its taken as anything more than a single observation. |
Did it restrict breathing or vision, or both, without the bevor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vision was more the issue, for me.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This 16th-century account from William Patten of what could happen during a route and pursuit possibly sheds some light on the high prevalence of head wounds from period battlefield graves. Patten described how the fleeing Scottish infantry dropped their weapons, armor, and sometimes even doublets to run as fast as they could. However, some did keep their helmets on during at least part of the flight, and Patten described how these would "shrink their heads into their shoulders, like a tortoise into its shell" when attack by followers from behind.
| William Patten wrote: | Soon after this notable strewing of their footmen's weapons, began the pitiful sight of the dead corpses lying dispersed abroad. Some, with their legs cut off; others but hought [ham-strung] and left lying half dead: others, with their arms cut off; divers, their necks half asunder; many, their heads cloven; of sundry, the brains pasht [smashed] out; of some others again, their heads quite off: with a thousand other kinds of killing.
After that, and further in the chase, all, for the most part, killed either in the head or in the neck; for our horsemen could not well reach them lower with their swords. |
Patten also described how some of the pursuing cavalry broke three or four swords in the engagement. He didn't mention it explicitly, but the fact that he wrote that some fleeing Scots kept on their skullcaps and some horsemen broke multiple swords suggests that the cavalry may have at times penetrated or at least knocked off helmets with repeated blows, which likewise could break their swords.
As far as cuts to the head that didn't penetrate the skull goes, that's plausible enough when thinking about blows against fleeing opponents with completely unprotected heads because of the dynamics of pursuit and flight. On the other hand, 16th-century coroner's roll show that even single-handed swords could deeply penetrate into the skull with one good blow.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Sat 27 Jun, 2015 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | This 16th-century account from William Patten of what could happen during a route and pursuit possibly sheds some light on the high prevalence of head wounds from period battlefield graves. Patten described how the fleeing Scottish infantry dropped their weapons, armor, and sometimes even doublets to run as fast as they could. However, some did keep their helmets on during at least part of the flight, and Patten described how these would "shrink their heads into their shoulders, like a tortoise into its shell" when attack by followers from behind.
| William Patten wrote: | Soon after this notable strewing of their footmen's weapons, began the pitiful site of the dead corpses lying dispersed abroad. Some, with their legs cut off; others but hought [ham-strung] and left lying half dead: others, with their arms cut off; divers, their necks half asunder; many, their heads cloven; of sundry, the brains pasht [smashed] out; of some others again, their heads quite off: with a thousand other kinds of killing.
After that, and further in the chase, all, for the most part, killed either in the head or in the neck; for our horsemen could not well reach them lower with their swords. |
Patten also described how some of the pursuing cavalry broke three or four swords in the engagement. He didn't mention it explicitly, but the fact that he wrote that some fleeing Scots kept on their skullcaps and some horsemen broke multiple swords suggests that the cavalry may have at times penetrated or at least knocked off helmets with repeated blows, which likewise could break their swords.
As far as cuts to the head that didn't penetrate the skull goes, that's plausible enough when thinking about blows against fleeing opponents with completely unprotected heads because of the dynamics of pursuit and flight. On the other hand, 16th-century coroner's roll show that even single-handed swords could deeply penetrate into the skull with one good blow. |
A horse would add power to the blow just like the haft of a halberd like weapon would. We also see depictions of weapons with cuts in them in the late medieval period. The quote is interesting too because it suggests that many had their head 'cloven' and with their brain juices dripping out before the cavalry chase (if I read it correctly).
I would also be interested in knowing how well someone could flee with a 3 cm cut into his head and skull, I am not sure if that sort of trauma is enough to disable someone.
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of us do not have experience in the difference of the power between a mounted and unmounted blow with a weapon. It is colossal. A horseman's mace is a bit of a joke if you try to use it on foot against someone in full plate with a good helmet liner; the real maces are quite light. From galloping horseback, they hit like a bus! 
jamesarlen.com
|
|
 |
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Most of us do not have experience in the difference of the power between a mounted and unmounted blow with a weapon. It is colossal. A horseman's mace is a bit of a joke if you try to use it on foot against someone in full plate with a good helmet liner; the real maces are quite light. From galloping horseback, they hit like a bus! |
If you have some experience with it i'd certainly like to hear about it. Is the effect similar with swords?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Jun, 2015 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Arlen Gillaspie wrote: | | Most of us do not have experience in the difference of the power between a mounted and unmounted blow with a weapon. It is colossal. A horseman's mace is a bit of a joke if you try to use it on foot against someone in full plate with a good helmet liner; the real maces are quite light. From galloping horseback, they hit like a bus! |
Interestingly, I often hear a statement that maces and war hammers were specialised anti-armour weapons. I always had doubts about it, since they are so light, like you said, but it seems to be a popular opinion nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raman A
Location: United States Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Jun, 2015 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vasilly T wrote: | | Interestingly, I often hear a statement that maces and war hammers were specialised anti-armour weapons. I always had doubts about it, since they are so light, like you said, but it seems to be a popular opinion nonetheless. |
What other possible purpose would you conjecture? A bladed weapon is superior for damaging the unarmored human body. You only have to look at Uccello's Battle of San Romano to see maces and hammers being used in context, i.e. by armored horsemen against other armored troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Jun, 2015 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Raman A wrote: |
What other possible purpose would you conjecture? A bladed weapon is superior for damaging the unarmored human body. You only have to look at Uccello's Battle of San Romano to see maces and hammers being used in context, i.e. by armored horsemen against other armored troops. |
The popular opinion I was talking about is that those weapons are equally useful on foot against armoured opponents, and that is where my doubts are, I probably didn't stress it enough.
From horseback I don't have any doubts that you could gather enough momentum to deliver a crushing strike with virtually any weapon, so the main requirements for the weapon you'd want to use would be it's length and durability, and maces and war hammers seem to excel in at least the latter, which is probably just what you need when you fight enemies clad in armour.
EDIT:
| Quote: | | Uccello's Battle of San Romano |
By the way we can see swords used there as well.
|
|
|
|
|
James Arlen Gillaspie
Industry Professional
Location: upstate NY Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 587
|
| Posted: Sun 28 Jun, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The cavalry of the Byzantine Empire often carried about several iron bars, which functioned as maces. Lose one? Two? Three? No problem, just grab another.
jamesarlen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey Faulk
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jun, 2015 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Is the horseback=extra damage thing due to the increased height, or is it the extra momentum from the running horse, or both? Just curious how one might model this without an horse. If it was height, it would be but a matter of building a platform, but momentum would be more difficult...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jun, 2015 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeffrey Faulk wrote: | | Is the horseback=extra damage thing due to the increased height, or is it the extra momentum from the running horse, or both? Just curious how one might model this without an horse. If it was height, it would be but a matter of building a platform, but momentum would be more difficult... |
I would guess it depends on the weapon what aspect of attacking while mounted on horse is most important to adding damage, along with angle of attack and position of the horse in relation to the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hardy
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jun, 2015 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jeffrey Faulk wrote: | | Is the horseback=extra damage thing due to the increased height, or is it the extra momentum from the running horse, or both? Just curious how one might model this without an horse. If it was height, it would be but a matter of building a platform, but momentum would be more difficult... |
I would guess it's the extra force from adding the speed of the horse to the equation. This would also be what caused some English cavalrymen in one 16th century account to break 3 or 4 swords apiece on fleeing Scottish infantry (they were rearming from weapons abandoned during the rout) -- hitting a skull with a swing while atop a horse going anywhere from 10 to 20 miles an hour adds enough oomph to the blow to shatter a backsword. It would also be why many horsemen's percussion weapons had wrist straps -- at that speed, you are quite likely to lose hold of your weapon when it hits.
On the other hand, the added 4 feet in height is nothing to sneeze at either. Essentially a horseman hitting a fleeing (or fighting) footsoldier is doing the equivalent of striking down at his opponent's head while standing on a barroom table...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Mon 29 Jun, 2015 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just quickly went through one of the Swiss chronicles detailing the Burgundian wars and it's absolutely full of depictions of dead and fleeing people with blood streaming out of their helmet. And lats of folks having head wounds in general.
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/Mss-hh-I...equence-49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Tue 30 Jun, 2015 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | I just quickly went through one of the Swiss chronicles detailing the Burgundian wars and it's absolutely full of depictions of dead and fleeing people with blood streaming out of their helmet. And lats of folks having head wounds in general.
http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/Mss-hh-I...equence-49 |
So in the end we've come to the same conclusion as in the neighbouring thread called "Weapons versus plate armour": we need more research on armour penetration.
By the way, have anyone ever made a penetration test on an armour replica that was created using medieval technologies and materials?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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