|
Verisimilidude posted:This weekend at fechtschule frisbee I saw a historically accurate bodkin arrow fired at full draw from a 100lb longbow bounce clean off a piece of historically accurate plate armor. Twice. The arrow even had a steel tip, rather than the more common iron tips of the time. Wouldn't most soldiers not have full plate and be rocking padded mail or a curiass instead? Even if the arrows didn't penetrate armor at all, if you're spamming arrows at a block of men you're going to tag a lot of people in the extremities.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:This weekend at fechtschule frisbee I saw a historically accurate bodkin arrow fired at full draw from a 100lb longbow bounce clean off a piece of historically accurate plate armor. Twice. The arrow even had a steel tip, rather than the more common iron tips of the time. The Mary Rose bows are well above 100#, and steel tips is vague. First, what kind of shape? Authentic Type 16s or something else? Second, what kind of steel? The old Type 16s were hardened afaik. If you have access to "De Re Metallica: the Uses of Metals in the Middle Ages", there's an article about it in there. Third, what kind of arrow? A livery arrow? I'd be really surprised if they had authentic reproductions on the other side too, not just a target arrow with a steel tip of some kind. Extra giggles if they shot a type 07 at plate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:The Mary Rose bows are well above 100#, and steel tips is vague. First, what kind of shape? Authentic Type 16s or something else? Second, what kind of steel? The old Type 16s were hardened afaik. If you have access to "De Re Metallica: the Uses of Metals in the Middle Ages", there's an article about it in there. Third, what kind of arrow? A livery arrow? Where are there pictures of these various "type" tips? I get from context that a type 16 is a "bodkin tip" but what about the others?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
The old typology is from the 1940s, but it's still largely in use. It's in London Museum Catalogues: No. 7. Medieval Catalogue. The new typology that you can see in the image below was suggested in: Jessop, O (1997). A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads. Medieval Archaeolgy, 40. p.192-205 Type 16 = M4 Type 07 = M8 These specialists have some better pics up: http://belza.iq.pl/index_eng.html http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/ (odd gallery, click on the images and there's a button for the name of the head up there)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
how thick was the plate
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:26
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Extra giggles if they shot a type 07 at plate. vvvv: Makes sense! Nektu fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Nektu posted:The type 7 is that long needle arrowhead? Why is shooting that at plate giggle-worthy? It's designed to pierce mail, it would just roll up if it hit plate
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Nektu posted:The type 7 is that long needle arrowhead? Why is shooting that at plate giggle-worthy? Yea, it bends. These heads are from the 11th century. One article in a journal described tests of these against plate, which was quite useless obviously. e: Btw, in absence of conclusive tests, I expect even proper reproductions to be ineffective against the best quality plate with sorts of cloth armor worn underneath. Like posted above, it's that not everyone wore top quality, and there's not a whole army full of archers that shoot 180# bows. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge at this point that arrows did not penetrate battle quality plate unless they got lucky. you'd fill the air with type 16 arrows and hope a few manage to find weak points and do some damage. I know that the bigger more pyramidal looking heads were actually the ones used against plate though since you need more oomph to get through if you manage to get penetration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
You mean Type 7s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:You mean Type 7s? No, the type 16 was the most common one right? since its in between the big thick anti plate ones and the narrow anti-mail bodkin heads. I mean the type 10 was the anti-plate head, the type 7 is anti-mail, and the type 16 was more all purpose WoodrowSkillson fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
I can't comment on what's the most common type. There's most likely an article in the JSAA, but I haven't looked for this explictely. From what I understand, there's some finds from the Battle of Towton, depictions in chapels from that time and the heavily decayed heads from the Mary Rose. If I find time, I can look at this, but if somebody has access to De Re Metallica: the Uses of Metals in the Middle Ages, that's probably the best bet for general information on this. My Uni's library doesn't have it, and neither does the national library. Maybe I can dig out some stuff for an effortpost in the next week or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I thought it was pretty much common knowledge The common knowledge I've been exposed to is that "longbows were the machine guns of their day and mowed down knights by the volley, which were the tanks of their days. And this is why France lost the hyw." edit: which is why I don't go to reddit history sections any more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Wouldn't most soldiers not have full plate and be rocking padded mail or a curiass instead? The answer is that the English were making significant use of longbows from the 13th through the 16th centuries, and body armor was also going through a lot of changes during the same time. In 1250 you would expect to see mail over a gambeson, with some plate components protecting vulnerable areas like the elbows, knees, etc. By the 15th century you would be more likely to see armor composed predominantly of plate, with mail protecting the gaps such as in the armpits. At any time, a knight would be likely to have head-to-toe protection, whereas an ordinary soldier or infantryman might be more variable. For example, the 15th century saw increasing production of what is called munition armor,. Whereas full-harness was made and fitted to order for an individual, munition armor was made on a pattern to equip large numbers of soldiers in the new standing armies. For infantry, it was normal for to wear a partial suit, usually with an open-faced helmet and limited protection for the lower extremities (e.g. no armor from the elbows and knees down). Consequently, plate penetration is actually salient for assessing comparing longbows against early firearms, because that's the target they're both shooting at. Tests of longbow penetration usually run into some issues. JaucheCharly already pointed out that we need to know which type of bodkin point is being used in the test, because they were optimized for different purposes. I also wanted to expand on what he said about metallurgy. Using the wrong variety of steel for either the armor or the arrowhead will give false results. If the arrowhead is a softer variety of steel than the armor, it will deform on impact and fail to penetrate. Conversely, if the armor is less hard than the arrowhead, there's a better chance to penetrate. Going back to munition armor, it was often made of lower-quality metal than was used for the much more expensive, made-to-order harness of plate worn by the aristocracy. If you assume milder-steel munition plate and hardened bodkin points of the right type, you could very well be looking at consistent short-range penetration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
some munition plate is also thin as hell too, basically everywhere people could cut costs they did
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:you could very well be looking at consistent short-range penetration. No reason not to spam arrows until 1600 or so, then? Even if you can't kill a knight, you can ruin his support troops or wound a horse. Slow down and disrupt/demoralize the enemy if you can't outright kill them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:No reason not to spam arrows until 1600 or so, then? Even if you can't kill a knight, you can ruin his support troops or wound a horse. Slow down and disrupt/demoralize the enemy if you can't outright kill them. Except the massive cost of arrows, which is only going up as time progresses
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:No reason not to spam arrows until 1600 or so, then? Even if you can't kill a knight, you can ruin his support troops or wound a horse. Slow down and disrupt/demoralize the enemy if you can't outright kill them. Nope. That mode of fighting was already obsolescent by the latter stages of the Hundred Years War, mid 15th century. Look at Patay, or Formigny. The French cleaned up... brushed the English aside, really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Nope. That mode of fighting was already obsolescent by the latter stages of the Hundred Years War, mid 15th century. Look at Patay, or Formigny. The French cleaned up... brushed the English aside, really. Yeah, the importance of longbow has been overblown during the years. It's kinda like German tanks. Yes, they won some battles, but they didn't dominate the battlefields like some people believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Yeah, the importance of longbow has been overblown during the years. It's kinda like German tanks. Yes, they won some battles, but they didn't dominate the battlefields like some people believe. On a HYW note, how accurate is the relatively modern assertion that English longbowmen didn't really wiin the battle of Agincourt, it was more of a crowd disaster for the dismounted French knights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:On a HYW note, how accurate is the relatively modern assertion that English longbowmen didn't really wiin the battle of Agincourt, it was more of a crowd disaster for the dismounted French knights? The longbows are a) one reason they dismounted in the first place and b) one reason they crowded so close together. So even if they didn't kill as many French directly they were still pretty important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Yeah, the importance of longbow has been overblown during the years. It's kinda like German tanks. Yes, they won some battles, but they didn't dominate the battlefields like some people believe. I think with the popularity and ease of access to english documentaries, many people have been exposed to this narrative and it stuck. They certainly dominated the field for the limited numbers of victories in the 110yw, but those were also won by favorable circumstances that enabled the english to make the most of what they had. Archers always need some sort of battlefield fortification, hindering terrain or a mobile plattform to be effective. It interesting to see how the Ottoman's system was built around the bow, but let's not forget that it was one arm in the group that also relied on artillery, light and heavy cavalry and battlefield fortifications and speed. Do you recall the marching speed of Hegel's armies? Look how long it took the turks from Belgrade (3rd May) to the river Raab (1th July) encircling Vienna (14th July), taking cities on the way, not just marching unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:It interesting to see how the Ottoman's system was built around the bow, but let's not forget that it was one arm in the group that also relied on artillery, light and heavy cavalry and battlefield fortifications and speed. Do you recall the marching speed of Hegel's armies? Look how long it took the turks from Belgrade (3rd May) to the river Raab (1th July) encircling Vienna (14th July), taking cities on the way, not just marching unopposed. so's a junker car with a possum's nest where the engine used to be, but still quote:Archers always need some sort of battlefield fortification, hindering terrain or a mobile plattform to be effective. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
That would be the obvious choice. BUT: they didn't. They had one Orta that was trained with polearms, and it was the place where they put their special men read: too incompetent for real martial arts like swordsmanship and archery, but still too able to be latrine diggers. Oddly, polearms were regarded as unsportsmanlike and distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:PIKES Since for your dudes, pikes are The Most Honorable Weapon, does anyone ever like to make classical allusions to Greek phalanxes? We're just like Alexander the Great's army! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Since for your dudes, pikes are The Most Honorable Weapon, does anyone ever like to make classical allusions to Greek phalanxes? all of this is exactly as tedious as you think it is
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:these dudes never met a classical allusion they didn't like, but it's the spanish who compare themselves to alexander the great's army, the dutch compare themselves to the romans. everyone drops ancient examples of all kinds into their military literature. I dunno it sounds pretty amazing. A bunch of snazzily-dressed and amply-assed Landsknechts cosplaying as some of Alexander the Great's phalanxes, drunk and shooting pistols out the window. As you do. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I dunno it sounds pretty amazing. A bunch of snazzily-dressed and amply-assed Landsknechts cosplaying as some of Alexander the Great's phalanxes, drunk and shooting pistols out the window. As you do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphal_Procession (this one never actually took place, but others did, and people dressed up) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Aug 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:these dudes never met a classical allusion they didn't like, but it's the spanish who compare themselves to alexander the great's army, the dutch compare themselves to the romans. everyone drops ancient examples of all kinds into their military literature. OK, now I have to know - did the people of your time ever get into furious arguments about whether Alexander with his phalanxes would have beaten Caesar with his legions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
well, a horse stepped on me. i'm ok now though
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:well, a horse stepped on me. i'm ok now though if you would have had a pike this wouldn't have happened
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:if you would have had a pike this wouldn't have happened
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i did. We had formed a circle around the musketeers and flags and a pikeman behind me left a gap in the formation and the rider got through. No idea who the guilty party was. How are the points counted in your wargame? Did he win anything?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Nektu posted:That rider was so loving proud in that moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Sounds like you need to challenge someone to a duel. Either the rider or the dude behind you, if you can find him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:i did. We had formed a circle around the musketeers and flags and a pikeman behind me left a gap in the formation and the rider got through. No idea who the guilty party was. :enlarging smug face gif:
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Sounds like you need to challenge someone to a duel. Either the rider or the dude behind you, if you can find him. I think the correct response is to pull a D'Artagnan, and schedule separate duels for the same time and place with the rider, the guy who left a gap, and the horse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Shoot pistols out the window, hit the guy who left the gap by accident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:On a HYW note, how accurate is the relatively modern assertion that English longbowmen didn't really wiin the battle of Agincourt, it was more of a crowd disaster for the dismounted French knights? I Think if the english had crossbowmen instead and the french longbow men the outcome would probably be the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:11 |
|
|
vuk83 posted:I Think if the english had crossbowmen instead and the french longbow men the outcome would probably be the same. What? No it wouldn't. The entire French plan was to keep the tired, hungry, and outnumbered English in one spot until more reinforcements arrived and cut off their retreat. At that point the English would either surrender or be slaughtered. If the French archers out-range their English opponents, how do the English force the French to attack them without suffering losses they cannot afford to take? I suppose it's possible, but highly unlikely. I doubt Henry is as aggressive in this alternate history if he knows he not only has to risk advancing against a numerically superior foe, but he has to hope that the French decide not to use their superior archers to check that advance for some reason. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 19:52
|
|
