| Author |
Message |
|
David Ruff
|
 Posted: Sat 01 Jul, 2006 7:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | Does anyone actually know of an account in which a man was killed by an arrow that passed through his shield? |
Yes. Gerard de Quiersy died from a Turkish arrow that passed through both his shield and armour. |
Have to remeber too, the turk bows, asian bows and the like were the "sports cars" of the bows... Pulling equal to sometimes more weight, (i have read accounts to 180lbs) composite limbs, faster missile speed. They generated more power then ANY longbow ever did. The limbs were designed for speed and power.
With a sharp bodkin - leather is not hard to pierce. What seems to me would be hard is the wood behind it - especially if they laminated it. Sheilds however were designed to deflect blows. I would assume some hacking from bladed weapons and shields would start coming apart.
As with arrows and the like they were designed to slow down - if not stop an otherwise deadly shot. Thats why they were used for 4000 years. Just like armor - designed to deflect and lessen the energy and injury.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Carl Scholer
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Jul, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Shield is pretty much a piece of ubiquitous equipment for European warriors from prehistory until the 13th century. The Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Carolingians, Franks, Saxons, Celts, Dacians, Normans, Arabs, Assyrians, etc all have their close combat infantry armed with shields.
With historic sources shield penetration is kind of split between shields succeeding and shields failing. Generally it seems shields succeeded more than they failed. You look at 15th century art depicting the hundred years war for example showing troops with shields who have arrows half sticking through them with the soldiers behind them continuing to fight unharmed.
In the Viking sagas the consensus seems to be that a shield will parry an incoming arrow more often then not, for example here is a description of a battle between Archers and Spearmen in Anglo Saxon England.
'The Battle of Maldon' -
'And yet no warrior could injure another, except by the flight of a feathered arrow.'
'Bowstrings were busy, shield parried point.'
'The hostage helped them with all his might - his name was Æscferth, the son of Ecglaf; he came of a brave family in Northumbria. He did not flinch in the battle-play but shot his arrows as fast as he could. Sometimes he hit a shield, sometimes he pierced a man, again and again he inflicted wounds for as long as he could hold a bow in his hands.
And,
'just as the warlike bowman in the midst of battle is hemmed in by a dense formation of enemy legions, then, when his bow is tensed by his powerful hands and arms and arrows are drawn from the quiver,... the throng, swollen with the arrogance of pride, their shieldwall having been shattered, turn their backs and flee headlong.'
These can be found here,
http://www.regia.org/warfare/SaxonArchery.htm
on the other hand,
Njals saga,
Sigurd Hog-Head was in the lead, with a thin round shield in one hand and a hunting-spear in the other. Gunnar sighted him and shot an arrow at him; Sigurd raised his shield when he saw the arrow curving high, but the arrow went right through the shield, pierced his eye, and came out at the back of his neck”
Thinking about it I can remember two separate campaigns where a later medieval force went up against an older European force using what would be considered outdated equipment, knives javelins, and shields. One is covered in Froissart, which covers an English engagement against the Irish:
“The Irish had laid an ambush and when we came up to it they sprang out at us and began to hurl their javelins, while the archers on our side shot back at them. The Irish could not stand their fire, for their armour is very simple, and they retreated”.
I remember a later French that described Irish mercenaries as being equipped with javelins, long knives, and shields. Although no shields were mentioned in this account I would not discount the possibility that they were equipped with shields. I also have a vague memory of reading a description of the Teutonic Knights crossbowmen exchanging bolts with and driving off Slavic warriors armed with javalins and shields. There was also a story describing a man who armed the some Slavic peoples with crossbows and taught them how to use them in order to resist the Teutons. This is all just food for thought really.
Here is a complaint by Vegatus describing the vunerability of Roman soldiers without armour but with shields:
In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows.
In any case, as far as history is concerned, sometimes arrows penetrated shields and sometimes they didn’t. It might be fun to see how angles effect shield penetration as this might explain some of the irregularity. There are 16th century sources for targeteers that recommend holding the shield out in a manner where the edge of the shield is pointing to the center of your opponent’s chest. I’m not saying that this was intended as a defense against missiles, just that it doesn’t look like many people held their shields straight out necessarily. Tilting the wood say 30 or 45 degrees off angle might (or might not) give interesting results. It should increase the actual thickness of the material when it is being penetrated and would lend towards more deflection as during penetration one half the arrow head will be hitting more material then the other.
|
|
 |
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Jul, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David,
I have never heard of composite bows being that strong that were not mounted on crossbows. That is pretty wild and i supose makes sense in such cultures of strong archer tradition but never have read that it was that high. The highest I have heard was 100 pound.
Randall
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 01 Jul, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Thanks Benjamin.
I don't suppose you could quote the relevant passage? |
Not the original, no. I think it's from Albert of Aix. It's cited by John France and Matthew Strickland. France may have quoted some of Albert of Aix in Victory in the East; I can't remember.
| Quote: | | Pulling equal to sometimes more weight, (i have read accounts to 180lbs) composite limbs, faster missile speed. They generated more power then ANY longbow ever did. |
Remember, composite bows were used on horseback, and often went with light arrows. I doubt many people were drawing anything like 180lb bows on horseback. A 100lb composite bow shooting light arrows isn't going to match a 150lb longbow shooting heavy arrows.
Of course, it seems likely Gerard encountered an exceptional Turkish archer. In general, mail stopped arrows in the Crusades.
By the way, though it's a different period, 16th century military writer Matthew Sutcliffe considered targets a sure defense against archers. And most of his targets were to be made of wood hooped or barred with iron, so it's not clear they'd be any stronger than the Roman shields they were modeled on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | If shields were as easily penetrated as implied in this thread then they would not have been the primary defense against missiles for four thousand years. As Felix said, few people were heavily armoured but practically everyone carried a shield. The logical conclusion is that participants in this thread have not been firing at shields that were representative of those used historically. |
The flaw in this argument is that it is equally logical that people would not have developed weapons to use against shields and used them for thousands of years if they also did not work. Neither system would have been perfect and no doubt it was an ongoing matter of concern and development.
In an arms race of this kind each party is continually seeking to reduce the effectiveness of the one and improve the effectiveness of the other and the traffic runs in both directions.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | David,
I have never heard of composite bows being that strong that were not mounted on crossbows. That is pretty wild and i supose makes sense in such cultures of strong archer tradition but never have read that it was that high. The highest I have heard was 100 pound.
Randall |
I will have to look around but have found several things to indicate that the composite hand bows were heavy and the horse units that shot them were fearsome. 100 to 150lbs is not much to pull as most all trained archers could do it and unlike the longbow 3 finger draw - these used thumbrings that made the draw easier as you are using the thumb (strongest finger in the hand. I find it easier to draw a bow using a thumb release as well. There are refeances that these bows pulled as heavy as 180lbs. I think even Payne Galwey talks about the bows in the book of the crossbow at a long range shoot.
Having built some of these traditional horse bows from wood, sinew and horn - 100+ lbs is VERY easy to get using the traditional building meathods WITH traditional hide glues. Have built 2 and sold them and they are still firing strong.
Some of the war tips i have seen from the eastern collections would suggest that the arrows were not light - rather heavy war arrows and well bearing bladed tips and bodkins. It is also a well known fact that these composite handbows in consruction and design were faster and more effeint then the longbow. this is something that still can be seen today with the bows that we have and very good surviving masters trades that are still passed down in how the bow was made.
I had a damascus bodkin here once that we shot off a horse bow that pulled 50lbs. We had shot it at 3/4" plywood from about 30 yards and it sunk something like 4" into the plywood. The fun part of it was the arrow had a mini camera on it when it was shot showing the flight and the hit. Yeah i know not period and way under weight in pull and over weight in arrow. But the funny part was a 80lb longbow couldn't drive the bodkin in that far.
Arrow weight + speed = hit i guess and/or so i'm told.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: | I had a damascus bodkin here once that we shot off a horse bow that pulled 50lbs. We had shot it at 3/4" plywood from about 30 yards and it sunk something like 4" into the plywood. The fun part of it was the arrow had a mini camera on it when it was shot showing the flight and the hit. Yeah i know not period and way under weight in pull and over weight in arrow. But the funny part was a 80lb longbow couldn't drive the bodkin in that far.
Arrow weight + speed = hit i guess and/or so i'm told. |
Make me wonder again about using arrows or bolts much heavier than what is thought to be the normal ideal weight ?
Maybe the normal assumed maximum weight of arrow is what is the best compromise between power and range.
The arrow with the camera attached to it would be heavier than a normal arrow as you commented on.
Oh, did you shoot the same weight of arrow at the same target without the extra weight of the camera to see how the arrow would perform ? If less well than the weighted arrow, it would be a significant observation and wouldn't add the extra variable of using a different kind of bow which makes a direct comparison of the arrow weight results less probative.
Have you tried yet using a ridiculously heavy ( Conventional thinking ) bolt like 8 oz. or something on one of your heavier crossbows: At least twice the weight usually considered heavy.
With the super heavy ones you are planning on making you should try pushing the weight up and up until the results on target stop getting better ? Just a few suggestions, I'm very curious about how heavy this would be for a bolt off a 1500 crossbow ?  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is also a well known fact that these composite handbows in consruction and design were faster and more effeint then the longbow. |
Yes, but not by that much. And, as I said before, horse archers generally used lighter bows, which was one reason why foot archers were a great counter to them. I'm sure some eastern foot archers did draw 150+lb bows and shoot heavy arrows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | It is also a well known fact that these composite handbows in consruction and design were faster and more effeint then the longbow. |
Yes, but not by that much. And, as I said before, horse archers generally used lighter bows, which was one reason why foot archers were a great counter to them. I'm sure some eastern foot archers did draw 150+lb bows and shoot heavy arrows. |
Your most likely right as the eastern bows are not my area of expertise in study and playing with them. I have a few - don't get me wrong. But don't really play with them that much.
It would also make sence that a horse archer would use a lighter weight bow - but compared to todays standards of light - what was light to them? i think i can agree on 100lbs on horseback, and i would think the "light arrow" would be comparable to a modern cedar arrow thats about 1/2" thick (spine weight for a 80 to 110lb bow) and carry a tip that was in the 200 to 300gr range. Or around 1000 to 1300 total grains. This btw would put a arrow right into the area it needs to be to be weighted for the bow by modern comparison. Knowing that these people knew what worked and went for accuacy i am willing to say that the above figures are very close to what would have been generally used as it would make for an accurate and consistant shot off a bow int he area of 100lbs.
Also, when spining arrows for a longbow compared to a horsebow - the rules change due to the increased speed and effientcy of the horsebow - this is a rule that is used today as well. The spining and weight of the arrow is not "standard" to a self bow. If i am correct the spine on a horse bow arrow HAS to be a tad stiffer then the longbow as the last 30% of the limb travel on a horse bow is like a "turbo charger" and spits the arrow out. It is said actually that a 50lb horse bow pulls like a 40lb longbow. Something to do with the limb design and the Siahs - the tips (spelling). In bow construction they knew (modern term here - the reflex and deflex) design and the backward curve of the bow added both weight to the pull BUT also changed the speed of the bow AND the way the bow pulled. It became more effient.
This can be seen in taking a self bow and "kerf" cutting the tips 10" and then adding glue into the kerf cut and bending (recurving) the tips.
A 50lb bow will become a 60lb bow and the speed and trajectory of the shot flattens out - ONLY by changing the tips. The same can be done when building a traditional longbow and using the same materials introducing a back bend (deflex) into the bow. OR by reflexing the tips. Energy is stored in the limbs and the limbs are forced to travel faster.
The standard shot off a period construction horsebow FYI using at 90lbs (have build one and checked it) using a 850gr arrow was 221fps. Compared tot he 80lb longbow i built with the same arrow - 179 fps. The speed was a lot differnt.
Now i know some of the above is not related to period bow building however - bowyers KNEW and were taught to build bows. They knew about bow set and how to counter it, they knew that tip design made a difference and it most likely came about due to the area they lived and the supplies they could get. English used yew as it was the best wood they knew to use - indians used hickory, osage and some even used cedar (never have made a successful bow of cedar). The eastern regions didn't have the wood, they made composites and as it turned out composites were the most effient bows that travelled the lands. Using wood and horn with sinew made for a light yet VERY fast bow that even today still out ranges and out speeds the period bows of the english and surrounding cultures. Period for period that is.
Edited the message as i rechecked the speeds and weights i had wrote down from back then.
I read somewhere that they tested the period composites and the energy stored and the effientcy of the bow is compared to the modern compounds that were made in the late 60's. I beleive it. in playing with some of the bows and seeing the speed and pulling the pounds. I mean when you can take a period composite and fire a flight arrow some 600 to 800 meters and only get that close using a modern bow - says something don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Scholer
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of the better efficiency of the composite bow stems from its ability to store more energy per unit mass. The limb construction, IIRC increase the velocity of an arrow by about 2%. Essentially a 100lbs composite bow has less mass than, and is made with less material than, a 100lbs longbow, which means that the arrow to bow weight ratio is better with the same weighted arrow and thus more velocity results because less of the energy is going into propelling the bow forward. Based on rough estimates I've made comparing composite bow and longbow tests it looks like a composite bow can shoot an arrow of the same weight with 16% greater velocity than a longbow of the same draw. Not much, but enough to be significant.
Any way, Turkish bow tests:
http://www.atarn.org/islamic/akarpowicz/turkish_bow_tests.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Derek Estabrook wrote: | I find it funny that people always assume that archers played such a little part in combat in the "Dark Ages" (Man I hate that term). The Norse Gulathinglaw and Frostathinglaw states that half of the Bondi - non-professional soldiers that constitute the majority of the army- can possess a bow. Obviously it was common enough for them to make a regulation concerning it or else why even do it. They were probably concerned about having too MANY bowmen and not enough men who are otherwise armed. The bow is one of the oldest weapons to exist and to think that just because the Romans lost a majority of their power the skies were no longer blue and that men abandoned common survival items that are necessary for hunting and cheap and easy to make seems pretty dense. The bow is useful in combat whether it can penetrate shields and armor or not. There are many statements in sagas about hails of arrows that blacken out the sun and similar statements. I probably don't need to quote them for a lot of people here know them. Archers have always been hated through history. The thought of facing your opponents head to head only to be killed by a man shooting you from a far distance instead of facing you man to man is pretty galling. Pretty much any culture that has a even balance of infantry to archers has cursed the bow at one time the same as the crossbow was cursed later on, but it is an effective, useful, and quite often necessary part of war. Even the strongest infantry needs a small portion of missle support to prevent a situation where you're penned down and slaughtered, just ask the Spartans and the Swiss. A few return fires to force them to pause, etc. and you can reposition your troops and attempt to break out of the trap. The SCA even tends to hate archers on the field (if you're not one of course) and getting "killed" just means a time out. Think about if it meant your life. Period drawings aren't always the most accurate of sources. You have to sort out the chaff by applying logic to them. Just because it isn't shown does not mean it does not exist. Accuracy wasn't always high on the list of what they tried to replicate. King David did not wear 15th century plate armor in Israel. I sincerely doubt that men were naked under their maille as in the Bayeux Tapestry. First off, skin oils rust and destroy metal and secondly it would be really damn uncomfortable, making you sweat and rubbing your skin awkwardly and probably pinching. Not something I'd like to think of. If you trusted most 15th century paintings you'd think every warrior in the army whole incredibly expensive plate armour and we might even believe it if it wasn't for the fact that the brigandine became a fad among the nobles as well. Archers are the same, nobody wants to think about them unless its impressive and even then it gives credit to the bravery of the infantry facing the storm of arrows. People want to hear about stories of brave warriors in hand to hand combat and see portraits of nobles on horses riding to face the enemy. The archer did not become popular until the English longbowman and I doubt very popular outside England at the time as shown in most accounts. So long story short, archer bad, but enough accounts exist to show they did play a part in Dark Age warfare at least as an important auxiliary.
Sorry to rant off the direct subject, but after hearing over and over again about how the Dark Ages were an ungodly archer less time with barbarians wearing nothing but skins and drinking babies blood (sorry for being overdramatic), I had to make a comment. I personally enjoy the historical significance of this time and it was hardly the return to the Stone Age quite a few people make it out to be. |
Actually, my confusion is over the opposite effect. If bows easily pierced shields, and many or most men were not armoured, why weren't there more bowmen? The rules promulgated by Louis II of France and Henry II of England both place men with bows only in the lowest economic class - as soon as a man has more wealth, he is required to bring shield, spear, and sword to war. If archery was highly effective, one might expect an army with a prepoderance of archers among the whole force. This occurred twice, as far as I know - in the army of ancient Persia, and the well known case of the longbow. The Persians adopted a unit with a front line of men with large shields - the sparabara - which were backed by several ranks of archers who were expected to do most of the fighting. The major part of the Persian armies were infantry, and even the king's guards, the Immortals, were infantry archers (although they fought hand to hand as well). Yet what one finds are the most peoples have armies that have mostly spear and shield (or sword and shield for the Romans) with archers playing a strictly supporting role.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | Actually, my confusion is over the opposite effect. If bows easily pierced shields, and many or most men were not armoured, why weren't there more bowmen? The rules promulgated by Louis II of France and Henry II of England both place men with bows only in the lowest economic class - as soon as a man has more wealth, he is required to bring shield, spear, and sword to war. If archery was highly effective, one might expect an army with a prepoderance of archers among the whole force. This occurred twice, as far as I know - in the army of ancient Persia, and the well known case of the longbow. The Persians adopted a unit with a front line of men with large shields - the sparabara - which were backed by several ranks of archers who were expected to do most of the fighting. The major part of the Persian armies were infantry, and even the king's guards, the Immortals, were infantry archers (although they fought hand to hand as well). Yet what one finds are the most peoples have armies that have mostly spear and shield (or sword and shield for the Romans) with archers playing a strictly supporting role. |
Archers were in a low class and not considered a chivalric way to fight. They were considered lowly and cowardly to kill using a form of weapon that did not ive the other a chance to fight back.
Crossbows were even more hated as it took days to train someone to kill at range where an archer took years to both learn the bow and aim the bow and hit with consistancy.
I do not think that shields were easy to bypass with a bow, Arrows pierced them sure. But a shield (like armor) lessened the effect of an otherwise lethal missile. Bows were incorperated into battle with volleys of fire to lessen the other side in men and moral. Arrowheads were used to both un-nerve the opposing force AND to send messages to lines and ranks of men.
However when your paying an archer to fight you also have to pay for the arrows and strings, waxes, the armor the archer wore, the side weapon ect....
When paying a foot solder - your paying for him and armor gear. I would imagine an archer carrying 24 arrows and being able to fire those arrows in 2 minutes would become VERY expensive time the amount of archers some armies had. Not to mention having to have extra wagons and horses to carry the archery gear - arrows, and gear to make arrows, plus the bowyers to fix/make gear.
Just my thought, i mean heck, i have a wholesale account to make the stuff i sell... an arrow is expensive - imagine 100000 of them having to be made and carried only to be shot away and the better part of them being snapped, stepped on, buried or broken.
Ever hand fletched an arrow - try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: |
I will have to look around but have found several things to indicate that the composite hand bows were heavy and the horse units that shot them were fearsome. 100 to 150lbs is not much to pull as most all trained archers could do it and unlike the longbow 3 finger draw - these used thumbrings that made the draw easier as you are using the thumb (strongest finger in the hand. I find it easier to draw a bow using a thumb release as well. |
>>>Cultures that shoot heavy warbows against defensibly armed men tend to fall into very similar ranges of draw weight.
For cavalry use the median appears to be in the 90lb to 120lb range, for infantry use the median is more in the 120lb to 150lb range. Even so, it would not be so uncommon to see heavier weights in use, Mark Stretton and Simon Stanley are shooting bows in the 165lb to 175lb range with arrows in the 1200 grain to over 1750 grains range.
| David Ruff wrote: | | There are refeances that these bows pulled as heavy as 180lbs. I think even Payne Galwey talks about the bows in the book of the crossbow at a long range shoot. |
>>> The composite bows described by Payne Galway are, as I recall, in the main specialised flight bows. These have little relevance since the arrows are so light as to be ineffectual and the bows were so critical in use that stringing them and realigning them was a profession in itself and they were very prone to unstringing themselves when shot if even slightly out of kilter. Not the sort of performance you would look for in a war bow, which is about reliably projecting a heavy shaft in less than favourable conditions if need be.
| David Ruff wrote: | Having built some of these traditional horse bows from wood, sinew and horn - 100+ lbs is VERY easy to get using the traditional building meathods WITH traditional hide glues. Have built 2 and sold them and they are still firing strong.
Some of the war tips i have seen from the eastern collections would suggest that the arrows were not light - rather heavy war arrows and well bearing bladed tips and bodkins. It is also a well known fact that these composite handbows in consruction and design were faster and more effeint then the longbow. this is something that still can be seen today with the bows that we have and very good surviving masters trades that are still passed down in how the bow was made. |
>>>It will depend upon how you define efficiency. Ask yourself how long it takes to make a composite warbow. Given a stock of well got up staves ready to be used, a good bowyer might tiller a good few longbows in a day's work. Add to this that you then have a weapon that is very uncritical to shoot accurately, using an arrow that goes where it is pointed at full draw with a style of shooting where the arrow can be drawn under the dominant eye, making it easier to learn how to shoot with accuracy, than a system where it is common to aim with the other side of the bow rather than by aligning the arrow with the target.
| David Ruff wrote: | | I had a damascus bodkin here once that we shot off a horse bow that pulled 50lbs. We had shot it at 3/4" plywood from about 30 yards and it sunk something like 4" into the plywood. The fun part of it was the arrow had a mini camera on it when it was shot showing the flight and the hit. Yeah i know not period and way under weight in pull and over weight in arrow. But the funny part was a 80lb longbow couldn't drive the bodkin in that far. |
>>>Really? I know someone who has an 80lb longbow that penetrates less and carries a shorter distance than the same arrow out of my 54lb longbow. There is draw weight for it's own sake and there is draw weight plus efficient design, in longbow and composite bow alike. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys-
When you quote other people's posts, please edit down the quoted text to include only the relevant stuff to which you are responding. Many times you guys have quoted text that is quite a bit longer than your own reply and this is annoying to read through. I've gone through and cleaned up some of the posts on previous pages, but doing so is getting old. Please try to make clean posts that are easy to read and follow as there are many people reading this topic.
The idea behind a quoted post is to give the next guy reading your post some context to know to what you're responding. You do not need to include the entire text, just enough to get across the idea. The reader can always go up and read the prevoius post himself should he need to do so.
You do not need to include quoted text from two or three posts: just the last one. Edit this other stuff out, please.
Thank you.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Ruff
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Takes quite a long time to make a horse bow. Mainly due to the glues used then. Altho if i'm using modern epoxies and my heat box - 2 horse bows a day can be had - mainly as i only have 2 forms.
I agree that bow effientcy plays a big roll in down range penetration and what can be done and what should be done. Again, this falls on the bowyer - like the armor smith - not all things are the same even when it comes from the same stave or the same iron core. Its all in how its made, some luck and to a degree the makers knowledge.
Im still trying to grasp the thought of 1000 archers in a volley fire and being on the recieving end - shield up and hearing the arrows coming in. The sound of the arrows hitting wood, metal and flesh must have been ungodly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rod Parsons
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: Head geometries |
|
|
Had an acquaintance come by Sherwood today with a selection of heavy shafts with different head types and we spent some time shooting them. It is a source of fascination to me how much difference head geometry makes to the level of penetration.
Finding a head that will make the best compromise for penetrating the range of protection in use was probably of great importance.
You would not want to use a plate specific point against good padding, or a padding specific against plate, or a soft target specific against maille, or a maille specific against plate.
Rod.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Jul, 2006 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Ruff wrote: | Archers were in a low class and not considered a chivalric way to fight. They were considered lowly and cowardly to kill using a form of weapon that did not ive the other a chance to fight back.
Crossbows were even more hated as it took days to train someone to kill at range where an archer took years to both learn the bow and aim the bow and hit with consistancy. |
David, where are you getting this? Please cite a reputable reference that states this.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dan,
You wrote
| Quote: |
There are plenty of examples of nobility using crossbows in combat too. Maximillian himself is depicted on horseback shooting a crossbow.
|
Would you have an art reference for a depiction of Maximillian using a crossbow in a combat situation? I have a couple of him hunting with crossbows but that is the jist of the volume. I would be interested in other sources for plates depicting Maximillian in combat shooting crossbows if you have them referenced.
Cheers
GC
Last edited by Glen A Cleeton on Mon 03 Jul, 2006 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Jul, 2006 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looking for references to the Battle of Crecy I found this site that has a lot of interesting information about ALL the major battles of the 100 Years War and tactical discussions: Seems very interesting and I haven't read everything there yet.
These are detailed discussions and images of arrow head types for example.
Too, much to get into here but good information to feed debate. ( We can argue later about the validity of the information and interpretations of period sources in the context of this site, but I found a quick read informative. )
http://www.longbow-archers.com/index.htm
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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