ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Armoury => Topic started by: Sir Ulrich on 2011-08-29, 18:10:30
-
Used to have something similar to this when I was younger, ever since a young age I wanted a maille hauberk though. When I used to make butted maille I wasnt very satisfied with it after I tested a patch of it by shooting arrows and stabbing it with wooden sword, which went clear through it. I KNEW something was wrong with butted maille. Also used to make cardboard plate and a cardboard great helm which later got smashed by a wooden sword...
-
Used to have something similar to this when I was younger, ever since a young age I wanted a maille hauberk though. When I used to make butted maille I wasnt very satisfied with it after I tested a patch of it by shooting arrows and stabbing it with wooden sword, which went clear through it. I KNEW something was wrong with butted maille. Also used to make cardboard plate and a cardboard great helm which later got smashed by a wooden sword...
LOL, nice story! Ive always wanted to shoot my chain with my crossbow....but i cant find medieval style bolts to work on a modern crossbow...the tips would just go through the chain itself since how theyre not made like >------> anymore. Theyre more like this now c----< uhh thats supposed to be the head with the same size as the shaft lol....no not penises
-
If it's butted it WILL go through no exceptions, only riveted maille can resist arrows. High power crossbows WILL go through even riveted maille as well as plate though. All historical maille except examples for parades or japanese examples were riveted.
-
slippery slope there. i have seen crossbow bolts bounce off of plate and arrows go into mail, all depends on how its made. :)
-
A medieval English longbow had range and power...but the average man will not be able to bend such a bow. Extant records indicate the larger ones had draw poundages of 150 or more- similar to pulling a fully grown man up an edge with just one hand and arm; that much energy was more than enough to send an arrow through mail and plate. Mail was quite useful in protecting against cuts and slashes, but not so much so for thrusts and projectile or impact weapons.
-
Well the longbow was also recurved to some degree during the 15th century to increase its power. And their skeletons were deformed to the point where the arm joints were bigger than average. Longbows could go through almost anything at close range except specially tempered armor if it can go through plate it can go through maille probably even easier. I DO know maille (even the round ring indian made stuff as seen in this video) is good against both cut and thrust as seen in this video:
Testing Swords Against Riveted Mail Armor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM#)
Against bows maille is less effective especially bodkins, but against broadheads and barbed arrows it's quite effective. Thing is wounds from bodkins heal easier than broadhead and barbed arrows as it's less of a large wound and can be pulled out quite easier so maille was effective anyway, but a few layers of linen can mean the difference between life and death.
-
A good thing to google for when looking up info about English longbows is the "Mary Rose", which is a ship that sank and took a whole bunch of archers with it.
Based on excavations, the longbows that were recovered averaged about 6'6" in length and 150 to 160 lbs draw weight, but ranged from 100 to over 180 lbs.
Bodkin arrow heads were extremely common for military use. There's conflicting anecdotal evidence that these may have sometimes pierced plate armor, but they definitely could pierce mail. It's doesn't take much to push something long and thin right between some links. On the other hand, linen gambesons/jacks/aketons can be surprisingly effective against arrows.
What's worth noting though is that arrows usually weren't immediately fatal, unless they hit something critical (heart, brain, major artery). Otherwise the wounds were often recoverable, assuming you weren't killed by something else while fighting injured, or struck someplace where it's unlikely to heal properly, at least not without infection. Fatalities frequently were much later, due to infection, and thus wouldn't necessarily remove someone from the fight, but rather limit their usefulness.
-
I have read anecdotes of shafts smeared in 'nightsoil' - you could think of it as a medieval force multiplier as now not only did you have to worry about piercing wounds alone, but infection as well.
-
and remember in England during the war of the roses period (15th century) is is LAW for any man aged 6 to 60 to practice the bow after church. so yes everyman should be able to pull any bow.
-
Ahhh, the old Longbow vs Maille. debate. This will spill over like crazy. I'd suggest we start a new thread for this big one. ;)
-
I'd suggest we start a new thread for this big one. ;)
I was thinking the same thing. I've split it and moved this portion of the discussion back to the main Armory board.
-
Based on excavations, the longbows that were recovered averaged about 6'6" in length and 150 to 160 lbs draw weight, but ranged from 100 to over 180 lbs
Just to be clear that number is really guess work, the tested average of the extant bows was 108 pounds draw weight but people argue the bows are old and damaged so they likely were higher, between 120-160.
It is hard to say how powerful they were, we cannot get yew at the same density they had today, all the mini ice age trees have been harvested and their rings were denser do to the continued cold of that era.
-
Based on excavations, the longbows that were recovered averaged about 6'6" in length and 150 to 160 lbs draw weight, but ranged from 100 to over 180 lbs
Just to be clear that number is really guess work, the tested average of the extant bows was 108 pounds draw weight but people argue the bows are old and damaged so they likely were higher, between 120-160.
It is hard to say how powerful they were, we cannot get yew at the same density they had today, all the mini ice age trees have been harvested and their rings were denser do to the continued cold of that era.
That is an excellent and uncommonly known but very valid point James! :)
~ However on the flip –side of that, modern steel is far more durable than the middle ages and brings the question of them cancelling each other out?
-
Boy, the modern steel issue is another whole separate discussion. In summary, modern steel is much better, mainly due to homogenous carbon distribution. In period, folding was often necessary to achieve this.
But the other issue is silicate inclusions, which make the steel more brittle (and thus bad for blades). Modern steel has the silicates removed so as to be better steel. However, period steel would only rust at the surface and then stop, due to the silica. This is why period swords are still being dug up from rivers today, but a modern replica would turn to dust in no time under those conditions.
-
I think this video would demonstrate some idea of how resistant maille is to arrows
http://youtu.be/YS504AE3Mxg (http://youtu.be/YS504AE3Mxg)
As you can see most arrows bounce off the maille and when they DO pierce it isn't nearly as harmful as you'd think due to the gambeson. Not sure how bodkins would fair though.
-
Yeah, they wouldn't pierce all the time, and the padding underneath makes mail an effective defense, but it's not 100%.
That video shows them using a wider arrowhead than a bodkin.
And lets not forget, you're still vulnerable where you don't have armor, like your eye (alas, poor Harold) :)
-
Not to mention impact injuries caused by arrow fire...it may not pierce but the force applied can result in deep bruises and broken bones, even with padding.
-
Ulrich, again, they're not using bows as strong as of old and you cannot quantify the hidden injuries accurately because they're using a wooden stump instead of a live body which could provide immediate feedback.
While those arrows may not have pierced, the impact alone could be very painful- imagine the force applied to that very small area where the arrow strikes. The rings on the hauberk in that video are a deal tighter than the ones I've seen on your shirt for instance, or on mine, but they would not have mitigated the blunt force much. The gambeson underneath would have, to a degree...but I still think you could end up with a really nasty bruise even if there is no puncturing, which would hamper your breathing and movement, thus, your effectiveness.
-
In regards to piercing plate, there's lots of variables - range, draw weight, arrow quality, steel quality, and for historical armor - where it actually hits the plate. We have "uniform" armor for the most part - a 16 gauge breastplate is 16 gauge everywhere. Historically, it was pounded from blocks, and thick in vital spots, and thinner elsewhere. A single piece breastplate can be 14 gauge in the front and thin out as much as 20 or 22 gauge at the sides. Then you have to account for angles - you need a pretty good angle to hit plate enough to try to pierce, instead of deflecting. Some historical breastplates have "proof marks", where they would shoot it to show that it was bullet "proof".
Is it historically plausible? Under the ideal conditions of all variables, I would say yes, but did it happen frequently? I'd say no.
-
And one should remember that when the longbowmen ruled the battlefield, it wasn't due to a handful of archers- but hundreds, sometimes thousands of them. A good archer could loose anywhere from 10-12 shafts per minute, multiply that by, say, the five thousand that Henry fielded at Agincourt (bolstered by less than a thousand mounted knights and men-at-arms) and you're talking about 50,000-60,000 arrows per minute- even the best made armor might withstand half a dozen impacts but eventually, you can see, based on position and range, why Henry won that battle. Estimates say that an archer could accurately place a shaft from as far away as 200-300 yards (three whole football fields) - heavily armored and mounted knights had to struggle uphill to get to them and archers just loosed shaft after shaft in among them. A prickly killing field if you will.
-
After seeing that video now I want 16 gauge maille thats arrow proof though for now I'm gonna have to make due with the maille I got though. 18 gauge is still good and lasts long but I think it would be less arrow proof than 16 gauge. I think earlier maille was thicker and as time passed in the medieval age in the later period it was made thinner as it wasn't the primary defense. Also could of regionally varied, there were 3 types of rivets I know were used, wedge, round, and staple like rivets, god only knows what else could of been used and how much it varied. Thats what I DON'T like about modern armor actually, it's all too uniform and a lot of it lacks the hand made quality of actual medieval armor unless you get it custom made.
-
You have to realize, back then, that armor was costly and considered precious. There weren't any 'off the rack' hauberks to be had- each one would've been made to fit a specific warrior, unless of course it was taken from a corpse on the battlefield but even then, it was made to fit that man, or the man who he himself took it from at some point.
Also, there is no such thing as arrow-proof mail, no matter what gauge the wire is...at least, not historically speaking. I'm sure it could be made now.
I'm also in agreement with regard to modern mail however- most of us would never be able to afford a tailored hand-linked hauberk...in talking with Erik Schmid, who is one of the considered-premier mail artisans, I have learned that such a commission would run in the $5k range. I don't have the time or wherewithal to discuss inflation rates or how much was paid for a single one way back then but I do know that the cost of a full harness would've run you what you'd normally pay now for a higher end Mercedes (no less than $50k to start).
If that were still the case, none of us would be wearing armor, or at least, not the collection some of us have acquired over the years. :)
-
Generally most combat grade maille is 18 gauge while the round ring stuff is typically 16 gauge. Not sure which is stronger but I prefer the flat stuff just because it looks better. I still say the half riveted half non is stronger than all riveted when it comes to arrows due to the solid rings having no weak point where the rivet is. Thing is thats what I initially wanted till I realized I couldn't find any, except GDFB and that would require LOTS of tailoring, thats what I DON'T like about modern maille; the lack of tailoring. Leads to excess weight as well as bingo wings, which I got to fix on my own hauberk though it isn't nearly as bad as other maille I've seen.
I checked out Erik's site and I must say I am IMPRESSED by his maille http://www.erikdschmid.erikds.com/ (http://www.erikdschmid.erikds.com/) I can tell the riveted rings are made of iron and not steel as they have a somewhat blackish tinge while the solid rings are probably punched from a steel plate due to their lighter color. I hope the future we will have maille of this quality (or looks) available for sale in the affordable range. The main thing is iron forge welds better than steel so the rivets typically merge with the ring making it stronger, at least thats my own theory on why indian maille looks nothing like the real deal. Though the later century stuff somewhat resembles indian made maille and I've seen a coif that DOES look like indian made wedge riveted maille.
-
Unless they come up with a machine that can do the links, and mass produce it, mail will continue to be a manual process and as such, quite expensive. As with all things desirable, you get what you pay for.
-
Erik Schmidt is one of the few people who really goes the extra mile to make it highly authentic. I think he's one of the only ones who makes museum-grade replica mail.
-
I swear one of these days I am gonna get a hauberk from him, Just gotta put some money aside for it. I am VERY impressed by the quality of his work. He should open a factory somewhere in India and make more using cheaper labor, or at the very least sell some rings so I could make my own. I am way too obsessed with maille for my own good though >_>
-
hehehe i handled one. even had one on. owned by jesse bailey of georgia. it was wayyyyyyyy cool and wayyyyyyyyyyyyy expensive
-
Sir Ulrich, you have some very fine tastes in mail! Erik Schmid is considered one of the best mail reproducers alive, if not THE best. There's a reason Robert MacPherson used Schmid mail in his armours. :)
I'm envious of Sir Wolf for having the opportunity to try on some of Erik's mail. I've only had a brief chance to view his work. Erik can occasionally be found at the MN Ren Fest, another fine Minnesota boy making armour. ;)
-
I swear one of these days I am gonna get a hauberk from him, Just gotta put some money aside for it. I am VERY impressed by the quality of his work. He should open a factory somewhere in India and make more using cheaper labor, or at the very least sell some rings so I could make my own. I am way too obsessed with maille for my own good though >_>
Ahhh, but then it wouldn't be his work...it would be the equivalent of Hanwei/Tinkers when you're looking for an actual Tinker- it'll be serviceable, based on his designs, but it won't be his if you know what I mean.
Still, I've spoken with Erik a time or two on SFI and he actually told me that I would be better off making my own than waiting in his queue...no idea how long it is or what have you but I took that to mean he wanted no other business at that time. This is going back about 7 years so I'm sure things have changed...good or bad, I have no clue. I still check his site from time to time for updates.
-
And one should remember that when the longbowmen ruled the battlefield, it wasn't due to a handful of archers- but hundreds, sometimes thousands of them. A good archer could loose anywhere from 10-12 shafts per minute, multiply that by, say, the five thousand that Henry fielded at Agincourt (bolstered by less than a thousand mounted knights and men-at-arms) and you're talking about 50,000-60,000 arrows per minute- even the best made armor might withstand half a dozen impacts but eventually, you can see, based on position and range, why Henry won that battle. Estimates say that an archer could accurately place a shaft from as far away as 200-300 yards (three whole football fields) - heavily armored and mounted knights had to struggle uphill to get to them and archers just loosed shaft after shaft in among them. A prickly killing field if you will.
One should remember in the "Great Longbow Battles" of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, they all were decided by the melee as much as the arrows. Also, the value of a longbowman wasn't in his ability to kill knights, but to break the heavy charge (Which was extremely deadly to infantry until the advent of the pike) due to shooting down horses (which were largely unarmoured)
Also, there are numerous accounts of maille protecting knights from arrows (Fired from both longbows and the more efficient compound bows of the Muslims)
The evidence in period literature shows many more instances of maille protecting against arrows than not.
-
Archers were mainly used to destroy large quantities of unarmored footsoldiers rather than knights. Crossbowman however could pierce even plate at close range though they were less practical on the battlefield and more practical during siege warfare. I DO know maille did protect against arrows by a large margin, but I am NOT sure if indian made 9MM maille would, my guess is it would but to a lesser extent than 6MM maille. Keep in mind maille's quality varied greatly so some maille might of blocked arrows while others didnt. Only real way to find out would be taking some of Eriks stuff and testing it, but my money is it WOULD deflect arrows.
-
we need to be careful about the P's and Q's. i do not believe all of the modern hype on crossbowman vs longbowman etc etc. think of it this way, if a crossbowman was close enough for his arrow to really pierce place do you think he would take the shot or run away from the horse coming right at him? in the few seconds of him firing he would be dead.
-
we need to be careful about the P's and Q's. i do not believe all of the modern hype on crossbowman vs longbowman etc etc. think of it this way, if a crossbowman was close enough for his arrow to really pierce place do you think he would take the shot or run away from the horse coming right at him? in the few seconds of him firing he would be dead.
Agreed, especially since horsemen getting close to an archer means the front line has broken/failed - and that's not a good sign. The short answer is no matter what we test, how, or why, we'll never have a definitive answer unless we figure out time travel. But no harm in friendly discussion. :)
-
true dat!
-
Agreed; and since I have no way of quantifying the properties of historic maille (I don't believe everything I read either, although for once it'd be nice not to have to fact check lol) I could argue til I'm blue in the face but there'd be no point in it.
Just based on the maille that I have handled and worn in the past, and knowing how much of an impact an arrow fired from a bow with a 150lb draw, I would have to say the first few arrows may not penetrate, but the blunt force they apply is considerable- especially when applied across such a small surface area.
-
Wow, I missed quite a discussion here. There have been alot of interesting and very good arguements made here. Anyone really interested in this should look up The Great Warbow. It's a very good book on the Longbow and includes sections detailing the English longbow from it's earliest useage until it was finally outlawed for use in the English Army. Doing 16th century reenacting, I am constantly asked why the matchlock replaced the longbow as the primary shotte weapon for English armies and the short answer is laziness of the English. The longbow had many advantages over the crossbow and musket, but it also had some severe disadvantages. There was a saying that if you wanted a good archer, start with his father. It took many years to develope the strength and skill to use a warbow effectively. A person could be taught to use a crossbow or musket effectively in as little as a few hours and could become highly proficient with them in a few weeks of practice. Longows also were very expensive to make, as were crossbows, while muskets were relatively cheap to make, at least in the 16th century. Muskets are slower to fire than the longbow, and most crossbows of great power were even slower to load and fire than the matchlock, but a wounded or weak soldier (either from disease or malnutrution which were ever present on campaign) could load and fire either much more easily and for a longer time, than the longbow. The effective range of the longbow is only slightly further than that of the musket and crossbows were made with strengths that could shoot even further, although most of those were really intended as siege weapons. At close range, a musket ball has greater penetration power than an arrow, even a bodkin point, but at longer ranges the musket ball looses some of that penetration power. In England during the 16th century, the old Statute of Winchester which had made longbow ownership and practice mandatory, was frequently reissued but ignored by the citizens. It is that decline that is directly attributed to the proponents of the longbow losing the arguement as to which was better, longbow or matchlock, and the eventual removal of the longbow as a suitable weapon to bring to muster. By the 1580s there are only a handful of counties in all of England which are allowed to muster longbowman as a part of the Shotte and most of these are destined for service in Ireland or Scotland. The bows on the Mary Rose are typical of those from the 16th century. I have heard some arguements that earlier longbows may have been more powerfull but the English were losing interest in archery and thus the bows themselves were already in decline. I have not heard of any examples prior to the period of the Mary Rose being found, so this is only conjecture. 16th century plate armor was commonly proofed against musketry and such armors would certainly have been proof to arrows at the same range. Of course, inside of that proof range it would be a different story, ie an armor proofed at 50 yards might not stop that ball or arrow at 40 and even if it did, they padding being worn then was not as thick as the earlier gambeson so the shot might very well produce a very painfull bruise. I think their must have been a high degree of doubt in the mind of earlier knights that their mail would stop arrows and other weapons and it is this that lead to the use of additional protection like coat of plate and splinted armor over mail. I have heard at least one account, although I can not remember where it came from, of a Knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that had penetrated his armor, his leg, the armor on the other side and the horse to embed itself up to the fletching. Now, is this an exageration to exult the longbow more, was this a "lucky shot", or was this armor poor quality. Maybe this is a complete fabrication by the author too, it's hard to say. This is an arguement that reenactor and history buffs have been rehashing for years and will likely continue to do so for years to come.
-
Sometimes it is good to resurrect old discussions whenever some newly discovered or conducted testing is found. :)
Interesting article here: http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/ (http://www.isegoria.net/2011/08/longbow-vs-armor/)
I especially like his conclusion of Butted Maille
Many people believe that butted maille existed in period as an armour type. I feel that this test shows the main reason why it was not used. The butted maille was no match for any of the arrows that were shot at it. Even the short bodkin and large broadhead had 1.7” of penetration. The biggest reason that I feel that this armour type was not used was the fact that either the penetration was excessively deep or only slightly deep but broken rings were pushed into the flesh. Not only would this armour not stop arrows, but it would introduce more dangers. It the case of the barbed arrows, the armour only impeded the arrow from being withdrawn. In my test shots all the barbed arrows needed to be pulled through, not pulled out. The best summary that I can give on butted maille is that it would be better to be wearing nothing rather than butted maille.