The effects of missiles - how important were armour and shields?

[Patrick Waterson]

Are you sure about this?

Well, I'm not an expert but what I've read (and just now checked on the internet) is that Rogers' figures are pretty sound for heavy cavalry.  Trots were around 220-250 yds a minute, gallops 330-440 yds a minute.  Some online sources estimate lower (as did Charles Grant in the Wargame).  I'm not sure of the reasons but I'm guessing they were slower partly because a cavalry horse is carrying a lot more weight than a recreational riding horse (and Roger Bannister) partly because they were keeping in formation.

I understand that the average knight at the time of Crecy or Agincourt would be riding something more akin to the ancestor of the shire horse than the modern racing variety.  And given the yucky, muddy ploughed field the French had to cross at Agincourt I suspect that on that day mounted movement rates were down from even the relatively modest mediaeval knightly norm.

[Dave Gee]

I was almost swayed to Nick H's way of thinking until a thought occurred to me whilst watch a documentary about Gettysburg. That thought was that as missile weapons have evolved from missiles that travelled comparatively slowly and could be deflected (stones, spears, arrows) to fast moving and better penetration (crossbow, arquebus, rifle) then the use of shields has declined and disappeared.

This has lead me to the opinion that the shield was used primarily to allow the warrior/soldier to survive long enough to get into hand to hand combat and was hence an 'anti-missile device'.

[Erpingham]

I understand that the average knight at the time of Crecy or Agincourt would be riding something more akin to the ancestor of the shire horse than the modern racing variety. 

Most would probably be quite close to the heavy cavalry horse of later centuries (maybe a bit shorter) and the weight they carried (unarmoured) would be similar, so the comparisons from later manuals have some validity.  The mud would have been a serious problem but, short of some re-enactment tests in armour across those fields, it's hard to quantify.  Conditions would have been far from optimal for a cavalry attack.

[Nick Harbud]

I understand that the average knight at the time of Crecy or Agincourt would be riding something more akin to the ancestor of the shire horse than the modern racing variety.  And given the yucky, muddy ploughed field the French had to cross at Agincourt I suspect that on that day mounted movement rates were down from even the relatively modest mediaeval knightly norm.

You may wish to read the links below for further information regarding size and carrying capacity of war horses.

http://www.horsesciencenews.com/horseback-riding/how-much-weight-can-a-horse-carry.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Middle_Ages

[Nick Harbud]

I am with Erpingham that the charge takes longer than Nick is estimating. I doubt that medieval knights had the degree of practise that 19th century cavalry had, nor the sub unitisation that gave control. the leaders have to move out slowly so that the other nobles can move with them , or rather just behind them, in appropriate sequence. It is then likely that they move forward slowly so that the whole mass can keep together, only moving to faster speeds for the last 50 yards? to gain the impetus of momentum. If they went at the gallop from the beginning they would arrive in disorder and good order is  vitally important. Add the slowing effect of the mud and there is plenty of time for controlled volleys

I think the idea of of medieval knights having no training or ability to perform coordinated maneuvers does not really stand up.  These links discuss further.

http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-myths-of-medieval-warfare/
http://web.archive.org/web/20110805101324/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm

Incidentally, a number of posters seem to concentrate on Agincourt to illustrate their points.  As others have pointed out, this is really not a good example for drawing wider conclusions.

[aligern]

What I think the knights do not have is training as large formations. I am with you Nick that they do train, but that it is in small groups and that a large body charging such as at Crecy , would have  a slow run up, keeping pace and trying to stay in rider. After all, If you get ahead of the Duke of X then it might be career limiting.
Roy

[Erpingham]

What I think the knights do not have is training as large formations. I am with you Nick that they do train, but that it is in small groups and that a large body charging such as at Crecy , would have  a slow run up, keeping pace and trying to stay in rider. After all, If you get ahead of the Duke of X then it might be career limiting.
Roy

Knights were, I think we can agree, accomplished horsemen.  I think we can also agree that few of them had much experience in moving in large formations.  We do have fairly good evidence though that they were worried about falling into disorder and as Roy says probably manoeuvered quite slowly.  As to not overtaking the Duke of X, it seems standard in several disciplinary ordnances that riding in advance of the standards was an offense.  The standard led, directed, gave the pace - if people pushed ahead of it, order was lost.  I think they got this from the Romans ultimately - Verbruggen points out the instruction not to advance in front of the standard is found in Byzantine manuals.

Anyway, back to the original topic, I strongly suspect that the main thing archery would do is not stop a cavalry charge dead but break it up so that it was delivered piecemeal.

[Erpingham]

Taking up Nick's suggestion, here is an example from a medieval battle that is not Agincourt.  It is from the Battle of Nogent-sur-Seine, 1359

The French cavalry are attacking the English men-at-arms and archers on foot.  The English archers have withdrawn to high ground

At this time, however, the French infantry, who could not make such haste as the men at arms, arrived. This infantry were full nine hundred men, and, being armed with lances and large shields, broke through the line of the archers and flung them in disorder; for their shields were so strong, that the arrows made no impression on them.

The broken archers were then ridden down by the men-at-arms.

[Nick Harbud]

Taking up Nick's suggestion, here is an example from a medieval battle that is not Agincourt.  It is from the Battle of Nogent-sur-Seine, 1359

The French cavalry are attacking the English men-at-arms and archers on foot.  The English archers have withdrawn to high ground

At this time, however, the French infantry, who could not make such haste as the men at arms, arrived. This infantry were full nine hundred men, and, being armed with lances and large shields, broke through the line of the archers and flung them in disorder; for their shields were so strong, that the arrows made no impression on them.

The broken archers were then ridden down by the men-at-arms.

The large shields sound like pavises. 

[Erpingham]

The large shields sound like pavises.

Agreed but I haven't checked the French.  Berners apparently translated them as pavisses but he may just be making the same assumption as us.

[Erpingham]

French now checked - the large shields are indeed "pavaix".

[Patrick Waterson]

In perhaps similar vein, but with shields instead of pavises, is the following extract from Ammianus Marcellinus (XXIV.2.5).

"At daybreak the enemy were already in sight, and we then saw them for the first time in their gleaming helmets and bristling with stiff coats of mail; but our soldiers rushed to battle at quick step, and fell upon them most valiantly. And although the bows were bent with strong hand and the flashing gleam of steel added to the fear of the Romans, yet anger whetted their valour, and covered with a close array of shields [clipeorum densitate contecti] they pressed the enemy so hard that they could not use their bows."

Ammianus uses 'clipeus' (a round shield of roughly hoplon dimensions) rather than 'scutum' to describe the Roman shields.  Whatever the shields were, they provided good protection during closure.

Shortly thereafter, Julian's army attacked the fortress of Perisabor, which proved to be rather a tough nut:

"Whereupon the emperor, hastening to try every lucky throw amid the mutual slaughter, surrounded by a band in wedge-formation, and protected from the fall of arrows by shields held closely together [densetisque clipeis], in swift assault with a company of vigorous warriors, came near the enemy's gate, which was heavily overlaid with iron. [15] And although he and those who shared in his peril were assailed with rocks, bullets from slings, and other missiles, nevertheless he often cheered on his men as they tried to break in the leaves of the folding gates, in order to affect an entrance, and he did not withdraw until he saw that he must soon be overwhelmed by the volleys that were being hurled down upon him. [16] After all, he got back with all his men; a few were slightly wounded, he himself was unhurt, but bore a blush of shame upon his face." - Ammianus XXIV.2.14-16)

Although the shields involved are termed 'clipeus' by Ammianus, implying they are of a round type, they seem to confer quite adequate protection against missiles when the men are closely formed.

[Dave Beatty]

Purely from a reenacting perspective, I used to be a (long) bowman in an archer unit. We went to many shows from the small (Tintagel) to the enormous (Tewkesbury) and size does matter with regards to archery!

Question for Holly - what were the max ranges you were capable of shooting?  And what did you consider to be your max effective range?  I bow hunt here in the US and I will never take a shot longer than 40 yards (well, okay, I once shot at a mountain lion at about 60 but just because he was stalking me and I was getting nervous - missed by the way but got close enough that I scared the cat off).  I don't know anyone who would take a shot at an animal beyond 50 yards and expect to hit - a good hunter wouldn't take that shot because even if you hit the animal chances are you won't kill it.  I shoot a bow with a 30" draw, 55 pound pull and about 280 feet per second speed at release.  My son (who is a bit taller than I) shoots at 70 pounds and about 310 FPS.  We killed two elk this year - both at about 30 yards.  So I'm curious what y'all learned in the reenactment business compared to what we do in the hunting business...

[Imperial Dave]

Purely from a reenacting perspective, I used to be a (long) bowman in an archer unit. We went to many shows from the small (Tintagel) to the enormous (Tewkesbury) and size does matter with regards to archery!

Question for Holly - what were the max ranges you were capable of shooting?  And what did you consider to be your max effective range?  I bow hunt here in the US and I will never take a shot longer than 40 yards (well, okay, I once shot at a mountain lion at about 60 but just because he was stalking me and I was getting nervous - missed by the way but got close enough that I scared the cat off).  I don't know anyone who would take a shot at an animal beyond 50 yards and expect to hit - a good hunter wouldn't take that shot because even if you hit the animal chances are you won't kill it.  I shoot a bow with a 30" draw, 55 pound pull and about 280 feet per second speed at release.  My son (who is a bit taller than I) shoots at 70 pounds and about 310 FPS.  We killed two elk this year - both at about 30 yards.  So I'm curious what y'all learned in the reenactment business compared to what we do in the hunting business...

Hi Dave,

I guess the main thing to note here is that we rarely flat shot and never in combat (although having said that very occaisionally for specific exhibitions, we were allowed to demonstrate flat shooting with blunts against the "clankies" ). We always fired "drop shots" we reenacting, partly for going over intervening troops and partly to extend the range of the bows. Obviously 45 degrees was used for our maximum distance. We also used a variety of fletchings depending on the show/battle we were in. If space was a restriction then flu flus were employed to keep the distance down.

As to maximum distances (using angled dropping shots), I have seen fellow reenactors send arrows up to 200 yards (bigger lads than me with bigger draw-weights I hasten to add!). For me, I had a draw-weight of around 35-40lbs and could normally expect to achieve 100-120yards. As to effective maximum range, if firing into a body of troops, I would say half to 2/3 the above distances. If firing on an individual, I would say no more than about a 1/4 of the above maximums, depending on the skill of the bowman!!! 

Its a different style of shooting to modern bows and with the longbow, we had to "nock, draw and loose" in one fluid motion to transfer the maximum amount of stored energy from the bow and string into the arrow to achieve the distances.

[aligern]

Patrick what is the Latin word used for bristling in your Ammianus quotation??
Roy