Main > The Armoury

Arrows vs. Mail -- was Re: Chainmail on a peasant's budget

<< < (4/8) > >>

Sir Edward:

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) :)

Sir William:
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.

Sir William:
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.

Sir James A:
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.

Sir William:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page