Longbow v 1415 plate

[Erpingham]

Next up in the occassional series - the one some of us have been waiting for.  Tod Todeschini's reconstruction of a 1415 man-at-arms in plate v. a 160lb longbow at around 10m on You Tube.  Lots of loud clanging and smashed arrows in slo-mo.  Interesting commentary from the ever enthusiastic Tod, plus top experts and craftspeople.  Well worth a watch.

The key to this one was they reproduced what was probably the standard plate armour in 1415, not the top of the range.  It was not impervious (too much mail still in use) but pretty effective.  Our man-at-arms would not necessarily have been killed but could easily have been wounded or stunned.  He would certainly start at a disadvantage when he got to handstrokes with his English equivalent.

[Mark G]

that is so cool.  best 45 minutes you will spend in front of the telly this year.

Peter Barham, this is what we were talking about last time

the range is interesting, maybe 15 meters, and yet when he tries to aim for a specific target - gaps in the plate, or the front arm - he is close but not quite.

Stage 3 with heavy shields would be interesting to see how much difference they make to the mail areas too.

[Cantabrigian]

I think the key takeaway, which may have been obvious to others, is that armour of this era was pretty useless against arrows because it didn't cover everywhere.  Yes, a proportion of the hits might be harmless, but an archer aiming at your groin was going to take you out before you got anywhere near him.

[Mark G]

I think you are completely wrong.

The key takeaway is exactly what was done, mail is useless and unarmoured horses are dead, but plate works, so dismount and add more plate - which they did.  And they won, eventually.

Look at the film again, the major wounds only happen at small unplated bits - which are not easy to hit (you can see him trying) even at some 25 yards on a stationary target.

Plus you need to stay out of wet fields, and find a way to shoot back

[RichT]

The key takeaway for me was the importance of the angle at which the arrow strikes the plate, which makes the various tests against flat sheets of plate null and void.

A proportion of the hits being harmless is a good deal, so far as the advancing infantry/knights are concerned.

[Erpingham]

Interesting to see some opposite take-aways from the same experiment.

There were lots of things tested on this which were part of the "lore" of the longbow.  One was arrows would go through poorer quality armour (this did not seek to duplicate the most technically advanced armour of 1415) easily. They don't, unless they hit weak points.  It takes quite a lucky shot even to penetrate the thin armour on the arms and the idea that the visor was vulnerable looks unlikely (though period art shows that the French also wore kettle helmets - a test against one of those in bowed-head mode would be interesting).

We might also note that this was a 160lb longbow with a master archer shooting armour-piercing arrows (which tend to be referred to, especially by Tod, as plate cutters).  Most longbowmen at Agincourt were weakened by campaigning, probably drew a bow of 100-130 lbs and were issued with multi-role arrows (called in modern typology a Jessop M4).  What difference this would make I don't know (I suspect the mail would still be vulnerable at short range).

That short range remains an issue, I think.  Tod has confirmed the range was 15m.  How much further out is this armour vulnerable in its weak points? 

[RichT]

My other takeaway was that that archer will have terrible back problems in later life.

Also, in the era of firearms infantry would advance (to contact, perhaps, sometimes) without any armour at all, or any defence against incoming shot. Penetration tests could be carried out on muskets against cloth uniforms, but I don't know what that would prove. I rather feel that way with tests like this, interesting though they are. (Because, to spell it out, there are a bazillion other factors from weight of bows to skill of archers to determination of attackers to accuracy of shot and so on and on, and armour penetrating ability of arrows at range x from bow y at angle z on point a is only a tiny part of the whole picture).

[Erpingham]

I think the importance of tests like these is they build up to an understanding of the technological parameters of archery on the battlefield.  It would be foolish to try to draw too much from them alone (ignoring, say, the written record) but brushing them aside seems equally flawed.  Collect as much evidence as you can to get a rounded picture to build your reconstruction, I reckon.

[RichT]

Sure - and I don't think anyone advocated brushing them aside, unless I'm somehow not seeing a bunch of posts on this forum? As I said, technical params are 'a tiny part of the whole picture', but they are still a part (and unlike some other things, they are at least to some extent repeatable, testable and quantifiable, which also makes them popular).

As a general rule though I've not been impressed by a lot of these sorts of tests (eg the things Christopher Matthew talks about) - but then we had a 'value of re-enactment' thread a while ago so that's another topic already done to death!

[Erpingham]

Sure - and I don't think anyone advocated brushing them aside, unless I'm somehow not seeing a bunch of posts on this forum?

That's me deliberately exaggerating for effect again.   Sorry.

As I said, technical params are 'a tiny part of the whole picture', but they are still a part (and unlike some other things, they are at least to some extent repeatable, testable and quantifiable, which also makes them popular).

As a general rule though I've not been impressed by a lot of these sorts of tests (eg the things Christopher Matthew talks about) - but then we had a 'value of re-enactment' thread a while ago so that's another topic already done to death!

As always with these things, I prefer those which are clear on their parameters and methods, because it makes it easier to spot faults.  After Paul Bardunias was critical (as a scientist) of people claiming these activities as experiments, I've tried to view them more as tests (of ideas, of reconstructions etc.).  In this case, we have knowledgeable people with quite a bit of experience of testing stuff who define their objectives, specify the qualities of their materials and measure stuff (weights, measures, speeds, decibel levels).  So better than the average.

[Cantabrigian]

The key takeaway is exactly what was done, mail is useless and unarmoured horses are dead, but plate works, so dismount and add more plate - which they did.  And they won, eventually.

That's a bit like saying 1st World War infantry were fine against machine guns because eventually they'd learn to use helicopters.

During 1415 the French we're vulnerable to archery - I don't think there's a lot of debate about that.  This test gives one possible reason for that.

[Cantabrigian]

A proportion of the hits being harmless is a good deal, so far as the advancing infantry/knights are concerned.

Not really - you can only die once, so only be killed by 20% of the arrows that hit you is no better than being killed by all of them.

If there are significant areas with no practical protection (e.g. the groin) then advancing into an arrow storm isn't going to work, which is borne out by the historical record.

[Mark G]

We have to disagree on this.

Crest was all about the vulnerability of mounted men to archery.  Agincourt was all about the mud. 

[Imperial Dave]

As a slight digression we tried flat shooting against clankies and were surprised by the punch delivered by the arrows hitting

[Duncan Head]

Crest was all about the vulnerability of mounted men to archery. 

Nah, Crest was all about making your helmet look pretty   

(Don't  you just love predictive text?)