Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

Medival iron point question (Re post)

<< < (4/7) > >>

WillS:

--- Quote from: meanewood on July 23, 2015, 09:09:35 am ---One point I'd like to make is, a lot of the topics we discuss concerning medieval archery are based on little or no evidence.

That's fine , we all come up with our own theories and ideas in order to fill in the blanks.

Many of us conduct experimental archaeology without even realising it.

When, however, we have contemporary paintings that show a certain arrowhead, a type of nock or even apparent reflex in bows, we should not dismiss it easily as artistic licence.

Why ignore what is starring us in the face, unless there was proof otherwise.

--- End quote ---

Does that mean you think all medieval bows should have terrible tiller, you should shoot the arrows on the wrong side of the bow, the sapwood should be exactly the same thickness as the heartwood on a yew bow, the arrowheads should be the same size and length as the fletchings...?  I'm being facetious of course, but taking contemporary art as "evidence" is incredibly risky.  Most of them don't even get the basic colours correct on medieval clothing, and yet we're expected to believe the artists know the ins and outs of military arrowheads?  Part of me thinks it's far more likely they knew they had to draw an arrowhead, wandered down to the nearest blacksmith and picked up the first thing they could find, expecting all arrowheads to be the same.

If we took Picasso's art as "evidence" of human form during his period, we'd be in trouble.  ;)

Big swallow-tailed broadheads don't make sense in a military situation.  They're forge-welded together, which takes a huge amount of time, almost twice as much material and a far hotter forge.  You can bash out Type 10s in about 6 minutes with a charcoal fire pot.  Why go to all the trouble of making a broadhead when we know from archaeological finds that Type 10s were everywhere, in almost every battle field excavated from over a huge period of time?

Pat B:
I'm no military expert by any stretch but it seems to me that the bodkin types of broadheads would be more practical in the "artillery" style of shooting that took place during the War Bow period. A wedge type head, sort of like the bodkins, could get through armor, maile and heavy leather used as protection during that time. Unless you shot through the eye slots of helmet most other types wouldn't work very well...unless just the fear factor of the crescent points was enough to frighten the enemy.

DC:
When I think about the horror of going into one of these battles with swords and axes and where any wound can mean a lingering death by infection I can't see how a cresent shaped arrowhead is going to make me "more" afraid. I would be pretty much maxed out at the first mention of a battle :o :o

son of massey:
Stream of consciousness here to some degree, but the crescent shaped heads are nearly the inverse of a hunting broadhead shape, only taken to the extreme. So where hunting heads are designed for penetration and punching a clean hole, could these 'opposite' heads, when shot into soft tissue, be designed to act almost like a 'sharp blunt', that is to just make a mess of the meat? I also wonder if healing from or being treated for a wound made from one of these would be easier or harder than the standard broadhead or bodkin-could they act at all like a bayonet where the wound is particularly prone to infection or hard to take care of?

SOM

meanewood:
The point I'm making is contemporary painting are not evidence but with the lack of any evidence to the contrary, we should not dismiss the possibility that they were in common use on the battlefield for specific use against horses for example!

The argument that they would not have had more than one type of head in use on a battlefield is underestimating the level of sophistication of these people.
As for fitting in arrow bags, easy, don't have a leather spacer.

I think Ascham refers to having an amount of 'Flights' within a sheaf of arrows. It would make sense to me if 'Flights' were fitted with swallow tails to fire at mounted troops at extreme range!

If we use the arrows found on the 'Mary Rose' as an example, we notice there seems to be a pattern of two different lengths of arrow, 28in and 30in.
I don't think this is random, so perhaps the two different groups had a different head, perhaps Tudor heads on one and type 16's on the other!

This is not evidence but it does show how they may be prepared to mix types of arrows during battle.

To deny the use of this type of head in battle, you need evidence to back it up, not supposed minor
inconveniences to the supply and use of this arrowhead.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page