Kaelith

I've been debating to do this for a few days. But I think it would be good to have a thread devoted to the discussion of anything historical. Preferably NOT modern history, ie, 19th and 20th century. But that is more of a personal preference.

I'll get us started:

I've been reading richard barbers biography on the Black Prince and I always love reading different views put towards the major battles of the 100 years war.

There has always been the argument over how effective the longbow was. Now it seems pretty clear to me that it must have been very effective at something or else it wouldn't have been a main weapon in the english armies for several centuries! What are other peoples thoughts?

I'd love to know if anyone here knows, has experience of, or is a black smith with historic knowledge on armour and weapons.

callumf

Take the word babble out of the title.

I think its universally aknowledged that the longbow was a huge increase in technology for its day.

Im pretty sure the BBC did a programme on it in their "Weapons that changed Warfare" series?

__________________
sigged by Firebird of Stratics! Thanks!

Kaelith

well I just wanted it to be light discussion about history in general.

people can talk abuot any history they want! i just don't no much about 19th 20th century.

and how can i change the title now?

callumf

Can you change it via Thread Tools?

Im just a bit anti-babble - althoguh I do partake occasionally 8)

__________________
sigged by Firebird of Stratics! Thanks!

Kaelith

I can only edit the in thread title. but an admin would be able to change the title which is displayed on the forum.

*** Could an admin change the title and remove Babble from the title! Thanks! ***

On another note. i think it's pretty well excepted that even an arrow with a bodkin point was very unlikely to penetrate certainly the more expensive/better quality plate armour of the period. however I think why it was so effective, and this is not a view i've made up myself, is because the longbowmen were easily able to kill the moderately armoured men-at-arms and would do incredible damage to unarmoured or lightly armoured infantry and cavalry. which would only leave the high lords and nobles in their fine suits of armour able to fight effectively.

and also, as plate armour hadn't really moved onto horses yet archers would cause massive damage and mayhem in cavalry units and the injured steeds would go crazy from having several arrows sticking out of them and this would disrupt the whole formation. this i think also explains why the french decided to fight dismounted pretty quickly after the first few large scale engagements.

just some thoughts..

callumf

Logically if an arrow hit a flat surface piece of armour at short range I reckon it would punch through it.

[no evidence - personal opinion]

Much in the same way as a WW2 tank armour could be penetrated via shell hits in certain conditions.

If it hits any curved part of the armour [ which is going to be the vast majority ] its going to get deflected elsewhere and therefore not injure the initial target.

__________________
sigged by Firebird of Stratics! Thanks!

Kaelith

Yes, IF it hits it straight on.

But the finer plate armour was angled, as a bad example look at the plate tunic in UO, it has a sort of ridge that runs down the middle of it. this is also why the hounds skull (also known as pig snout) helmet became popular, because it's snout meant that arrows would glance off it, rather than the great helm which was a round pot helmet with a more flat surface, if that makes sense?

But yes, at short range, if the archer could hit a flat surface the bodkin would go through. at least I'm pretty sure it must have! although there are also accounts of archers aiming (and hitting?!?!?!!!!) the slits in the visors of helmets! that sounds crazy but seems to pop up quite a lot. this was ofcourse only done an extremely close range.

angels_and_daemons

It would depend on the angle of course... between say 70 and 110 say it might still have enough energy to punch through...

Also I'd be slightly dubious about the oft touted accuracy - if 4000 archers shoot at 20 nights on horseback there is a good chance that eye slits will be caught through sheer fluke. Yes people trained for years with english longbows but unless the target is sitting still it would be rather hard to acount for movement of say a horse underneath the target galloping.

Oh and a test on english longbows that was done on a war historians program on the BBC at 150 yards put a bodkin through a layer of steel plate armour (a breast plate, one WITH that funny ridge down the middle and a curve to it) a layer of chain mail and then 3" of heavy cotton wadding to see how far in it would go... so range and angles are no guarantee of survival

Futt

Not to mention the fact that they'd probably not be on horseback anymore...

__________________

http://www.futt.org/

Kaelith

Yup. they mostly fought on foot towards the end.

and I think the archers saved their bodkins of short range so they were more SURE of their shot. rather than just being a shot at a group

Stewan Seagull

Well, the English Longbowmen practically wiped out the French Chivalry at Agincourt (1415 methinks) - this event sent the french nobility (or what was left of it) into shock and almost won the war for England, what they had tried for the past 75 or so years.

And yes, if a full regiment of Longbows fires at any group of heavy armore knights lots of arrows are gonna hit a good spot. Repeat that every 2 seconds or so and you?ll get a good chance at almost anything.

Snubson

*cant comment on arrows and slits, but can change the title*

__________________

Kaelith

I seriously doubt longbowmen could fire every 2 seconds. considering the wieght of the bows were a minimum of 100 lbs they were heavy bows! I think i've heard that a well trained longbowman could fire an effective shot once every 6 seconds. which is insanely fast as it is once you consider there is probably half a second of pause once the arrow is loosed, a second picking out the next arrow and maybe another second or two to put it to the string.

but i get your point arrow storms were savage!

Boogoose

Here's a favourite discussion point of mine:

A 14th century European knight could beat, in single dismounted combat, a Japanese Samurai from the same era. A lot of people I know seem to back the Samurai, because as we all know the Japanese have magical powers and a katana can cut through a Challenger Tank and weighs less than an idea, but I think the knight would win because he is at least the equal in training to the samurai, physically much bigger and stronger, and wearing armour that is proof against a sword cut on most of its surface area.

Discuss.

Thorien

I think you're overlooking the basic point of the arrow. It isnt designed to hit the knight. its designed to hit the bigger target, ie the horse or the massed ranks of peasant scum. a knight on his back in the mud isn't a threat to anyone, and barding was even less common than armour. Killing a knight was a bit of a fluke.

A skilled longbowman could put about 4 aimed arrows in the air per minute rather than 30.