Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: D. Tiller on May 14, 2007, 10:04:08 pm
-
I've been thinking about minimum and maximum penitration and its relation to bow weight with warbows. I've read and been a part of a lot of discusions on bow weight vs penetration of armor and what was the minimal weight necesary to actually do this at military distances with a warbow durring the beginning of its use. I propose we do a test and find out what is the minimum weight of both bow and arrow to penitrate chainmail at 50, 100 and 200 yards.
I think such tests should be done with yew bows pulling in weights from 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120 pounds weight and shooting shafts 3/8ths inch and 1/2 inch in diameter with long bodkin points. I believe such a test would allow us to determine the lightest weight of bow usable during the nasence of the warbow.
Now all we have to do is find someone who has some chainmail to test on and people with bows in these weight ranges. Whos up for the challenge? Me I only have one 60# bow in yew.
Does anyone know what early shaft diameters where during the birth of the warbow? I would think they were actually smaller than 1/2 inch in diameter.
-
60-80lb Bows are going to struggle with 1/2 shafts,i loosed a livery arrow out of my 75lb (More like 70lb now) Bow and the results werent very impressive ;D,arrow was far too heavy for me.
This test would allso do for testing accuracy,i presume the Mail is going to be a Hauberk? or Hauberk size? as you know D.Tiller all the relevant undergarments will have to be included to get a accurate discription of the penetration.Then there's the steel used for the armour,can you remember the discussions on the WB forum ;D,jeez.... ;D
-
Hi guys, if your'e talking Norman era then you dont need any padding as there is no evidence for akertons before the mid 12th C. If you're talking about the time of around edward the 1st then you need an arrow that will penertrate the maille plus akerton and also about this time the coat-of-plates was starting to appear so I think the early warbows and arrows couldnt have been much lighter then the Mary Rose ones. However I have seen a 60lb bow destroy maille without paddind at 20 metres.
-
Just a quick question.. Why yew bows? I thought we all agreed that every wood is equal, just have to design it right. I know that would disqualify some woods that need to be made flat and thin from being a "warbow", but why couldn't you do the tests with ipe, massaranduba or another dense wood that has been proven to withstand the 5:8 ratio?
-
There is indirect evidence of padding worn under chainmail in the norman era. It exists in the form of written account. Anybody cares to post first crusade erata on "Franks" (Normans).
Its either description of one of muslim writers (or perhaps even in the description of normans by Anna Komnena) about "Franks marching through the hail of arrows and not paying any heed to many arrows sticking out of their armour resembling the form of hedgehog" - this is hardly possible without a form of padded thick undergarment.
Also in antic warfare was known "subarmalis" garment - which is preciselly this. Medieval warfare in europe stands on roman legs. So think. It was known, then it dissapeared and then again magickaly appeared? Hardly. (Taking in consideration continuous use of chainmail since late roman iron age in europe.)
Also - regarding metalography - everytime I get into discussion with one of armour guys about chainmails, they start to rant about how many different "styles" of chainmail exists and how "wrought iron" is superior to that and that....
It does not bear much significance. The chainmail is not constructed to stop piercing damage. Its mesh. Look on the development of spear since migration period through the viking age till 11. century. Does the bell rings? That is the reason everybody used such big shield in the time when chainmail was cutting edge of armour technology.
There is also written accounts of warriors withstanding large number of cutting and smashing blows (Vilem of Kounic took over 100 hits during the battle at Lodenice in 11. century - as counted on his completelly destroyed fox fur coat - the battle itself took place in freezing winter - he was without any wound and he established a church upon his return home) which is not possible without padded undergarment. (Kosmas chronicle)
Such a test does not prove anything in terms how light "warbows" were. D. Tiller - you are just triing to lower the treshold to pass into warbow teritory, but it does not work that way.
When in war you want to do 2 things
1) beat the armour
2) outdistance the enemy
Even if 1) is achieved you still want to shoot over larger distance than enemy archer and also the 1) has to occur with reasonable regularity. Nobody deploys ineffective weapon and stays successfull for long time. This trigers arms race very well.
There are at least 2 examples of 11. century bows which are well over 100# in the cultural area we are speaking of and lots of others at least in 80# range.
Also we have written account in heimskringla (excellently versed actually) of shooting through chainmail (and also that SHIELD is the protection against arrow, not chainmail.
Anyway
(http://www.reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reenactment_startseite/diverses/kitguide/crusades_hemd.jpg)
“German Infantry Warrior, 1130-1140”. Abteikirche von Andlau im Elsaß.
(http://www.wga.hu/art/m/master/zunk_sp/zunk_cat/000david.jpg)
David and Golias , Master from Tahul 12. century
So unless this sort of undergarment appeared by miracle between AD 1095 and 1150.......Go figure.
Objectives of this test is ultimatelly flaved. It "proves" nothing Also its obvious as Loki pointed out that 70# and 120# would need different arrow.
J.
(This is for both Len and Loki)
-
When testing anything with warbows, you have to start with what we know and extrapolate from that and not the other way.
Chris - in any hypotetical cause it has to be yew, since all bows of interest were yew. Test with anything else is not conclusive. There was no Ipe in europe in 14. century.
Whitewood bow would be O.K. though not a single one survived and I m inclined to believe, they did not looked the same as their yew counterparts.
J.
-
Since I m evil as usually, I ll ask a different question.
What is objective not that of the test, but the one upon which you decide that the setup is correct or not?
Ultimatelly 1/2´´ shaft shot from 75# is lazy bitch, but I m certain it will pierce chainmail. Then....What will actually be conclusive.
J.
-
Show me the evidence of Romans wearing padded armour or Vikings/Saxons for that matter and as for the crusaders walking thru arrows they were facing lighter arrows then English archers used. The stone carving is the earlist evidence of a padded garment I've seen but is still 12th C. During the 111 crusade Richard put felt or padded garments over his mens armour to stop arrows but this was late 12th C. and once again against lighter arrows.
-
And by the way dont quote the guy who withstood 100 blows as you said he was wearing a fox fur coat over his maille.
-
"Show me the evidence of Romans wearing padded armour"
- the word "subarmalis" is latin. Read Renatus or any other military writer of roman age.
http://www.legionxxiv.org/lrgsubmaralis/
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Subarmalis
"or Vikings/Saxons for that matter"
- Viking warfare is directly conected to late roman iron age. Viking sword is Spatha for the sake! There is again written account on "moose hide jackets" in Heimskringla.
"and as for the crusaders walking thru arrows they were facing lighter arrows then English archers used. "
- NON SEQUITUR. Doesnt matter how heavy were the arrows. I know they were light, I even did not considered it to be important.
one nice logical fallacy.
If the arrow is through chainmail enough to stick so that it resembles hedgehog spike and its your body, not padded garment its sticking out, you wont be marching comfortably and certainly not for long.
Go, find Kosmas chronicle. This high ranked monk left behind several description of fights with spectacular death of the hero in the arrowstorm. (Detrisek of Buzu)
The description again indirectly points out use of chainmail with some kind of thick undergrament.
It does not need to be "aketon" as the price of any fabric was still high in early medieval age, but it can be thick tunic or coat made of felt (processed wool).
"And by the way dont quote the guy who withstood 100 blows as you said he was wearing a fox fur coat over his maille."
-He wore fox fur coat, because the battle took a place on frozen river. It is written, that mortality on wounds was extremelly high as the wounded froze to death before any help could be brought to them. Fox fur has about protective value as early morning mist when it comes to sharp edged weapons such as swords. Its evident that he used coat because he was cold, not as aditionall protection over mail.
What I m doing here. Longbowman advocating armour....
Your style of writing points out a kid (And by the way), I was recently asked by admin not to chew our 12 years old memebers..But I cannot help it, I m evil person.
J.
-
Just a quick question.. Why yew bows? I thought we all agreed that every wood is equal, just have to design it right. I know that would disqualify some woods that need to be made flat and thin from being a "warbow", but why couldn't you do the tests with ipe, massaranduba or another dense wood that has been proven to withstand the 5:8 ratio?
If non period woods are used it just adds an unnecessary variable that could negate the validity of any results gained. It would be hard enough to get mail that is be riveted and from iron let alone use different wood.
It would give some indication but let's not 'tinker' with history if there really is no need.
Jeremy
-
A felt or woolen tunic does not constitute padded armour in the sense we were talking about and I stand by my comments that if testing against pre mid 12thC maille then you dont need to construt specfic padded armour for the test. If you think I write like a child then next time I'll try to not talk down to you :)
-
Is this a warbow topic or an English yew bow topic? I will remind you that serious warbows 120lb to 150lb average draw weight for infantry, 90lb to 120lb average draw weight for horseback use, have been used by other cultures.
But who else is presentlly shooting war bow weights? On that basis you might be stuck with The English bow for the time being.
I will also offer the thhought that with properly made maille and the correct quality of supporting garments, the type of head used is also a factor not to be disregarded.
When you shoot at something that represents a properly made aketon over maille it's very different from shooting at maille alone.
Also, penetration. even with the correct head will vary according to the support beneath the garments.
For example, compare penetration of padding on a hard straw boss with penetration on a foam layered field boss.
To get representative results, you are going to have to start dressing up some pig carcasses in the appropriate attire.
FWIW
Rod.
-
"A felt or woolen tunic does not constitute padded armour in the sense we were talking about"
- It serves the same purpose. Think about 1/2´´ thick felt or more. This is not just "woolen tunic". I find interesting what it can be made with proper rhetoric. Padded chainmail undergarment is not armour of itself. In some parts it actually cannot be thick (arms, ellbows) otherwise the mobility of combatant is severely impaired. Various later sources prescribe how much stuffing shall be used for aketons for them to be considered of good quality and the weights of the quill arent astonishingly high particulary if you take in consideration, that these garments been as long as knee lenght.
"I stand by my comments that if testing against pre mid 12thC maille then you dont need to construt specfic padded armour for the test"
- Stand where you want to. I heard this argument before and it is still stupid. Yes there is no pictorial or direct written evidence. This is hovever also because of heavy stylisation of pictures in the time we are speaking of.
Since romans aparently used it, later in medieval time it was sure used and we have battle records supporting use of padding under chainmail, the assumption they used it is well suported. It is an assumption, but educated one.
You basically place a birth of padded undergarment for chainmail into 12. century and that is a little too bold for my taste.
Sure you must read "The vikings" web often. :D
J.
-
Here's more sources for the ahketon between 900 and 1030:
1.) Wargames ResearchGroup Publication, 2nd edition, 1980
Saint Olaf´s Saga records some huscarls wearing jerkins at the battle of Stiklestad in 1030; these were made of reindeer hide and we are told "that no weapon could cut or pierce them any more than they were armour of ring mail, nor even so much"
2.) Osprey Warrior Series 3 (Viking Hersir)
Sturluson, in the Heimskringla, mentions the gift of 13 body armours of reindeer hide to King Olaf the Saint.
3.) Ekkehardi IV (Kap 51), St. Galler Klostergeschichten (Casus sancti Galli) (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi LXXV.).Hannover 2002. ISBN 3-7752-5475-7
“As in the year 926 news of the Hungary approaching the monastery St. Gallen spread, the abbott at that time, Engilbert, proved guidance qualities: He ordered an escape castle to be build and weapons and shieds to be improvised. Then he put on a armour under its Kukulle and instructed its brothers to do it equal to him. Thus they made armour from felt materials.”
4.) Byzantinische Waffen, Taxiarchis G. Kolias, Verlag der östereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1988, ISBN 3-7001-1471-0
“Beside armamanet, which (...), could cinsist of leather or horn and was alternatively worn to those of iron, there were such strong garbs from felt or wadded, quilted material, which likewise served as armament. (...) Those (Greek word) were thus nothing else as strengthened felt dresses or felt covers, which often also could could withstand a pass or a blow as well. (...) should reach only up to the knees. They had short broad sleeves, (...) they were compound from a mixture from cotton and (obviously inferior) silk, a connection, which was particularly resistant probably particularly because of their thickness. They might have been felted, quilted or wadded.”
This is to be taken from the Tactica (approx. 900) and from further Byzantine works for war guidance.
Credits go to Henry Skodell (http://www.reenactment.de/reenactment_start/reenactment_start.html) who researched this when composing the armoury-kitguide for the Franco-Flemish-Contingent (http://www.ffc1066.de).
Sincerely,
Heiner
-
Since I m evil as usually, I ll ask a different question.
What is objective not that of the test, but the one upon which you decide that the setup is correct or not?
Ultimatelly 1/2´´ shaft shot from 75# is lazy bitch, but I m certain it will pierce chainmail. Then....What will actually be conclusive.
J.
Hi Jaro;
Actually what we are testing for are the minnimums of early warbow weights and shaft diameters. We will not be shooting just 1/2" diameter shafts but also 3/8" andf possible smaller. The idea is to try and find out where the warbow started from and what the minimums were for shooting distance and punching through chainmail. I've seen lots of test done on late Mary Rose designs shooting 1/2" shafts but none trying to find out what was being used at the beginning of warbow use when chainmail was what had to be defeated.
Guys this is a minnimum test and not a maximum test. We should stick with woods used durring that age to make it as realistic as possible. Also, finding the socket diameter of the bodkins used durring that time will give us an idea of what diameter shafts were being used at the time and what we should also aim for in our tests.
Dont think we will nead a full wrap arround set of chainmail for the test. just something to cover the chest area we can attach to a soft target. Then set the target at different ranges and see which bows and diameter shafts will punch through the links at the different distances. I was looking at the long needle bodkin point since this seems to be the design that was used early on at the beginning of the use of the warbow.
Unfortunatly I dont have the bows or equipment that spread the gambut so nead some help in trying this out.
David T
-
We should stick with woods used durring that age to make it as realistic as possible. Also, finding the socket diameter of the bodkins used durring that time will give us an idea of what diameter shafts were being used at the time and what we should also aim for in our tests.
What about type 1's?if i'm not mistaken it was the main warhead used by the Saxon's and there must be a reason for the reinforced spine,why not for penetrating mail?allthough the Viking's of the Danelaw used a longBodkin similar to type 7's.
The battle at Halidon Hill ( Hali-dun in Saxon) was were Edward earned his spurs tactically,but were Bodkins in use at this time? The Northern Army's from Northumbria,Durham and Yorke mainly fought against the Scots,not the French,that was the southernors.I dont think the Northernors had a need for armour piercing heads like the men fighting the French did,i think Type 1's will do very nicely against a Scot wearing his mail (if lucky) and/or a jack (doubtful).
-
Hi D.Tiller,
I have riveted and butted chain mail it is a relatively weak defense against bows you'd be surprised how weak it is we had a kid with a 24 pound little bear recurve bow and some Kmart target arrows shooting from about 20 yards penetrating the armor.
I don't like shooting the riveted chain mail because the time it takes to repair the armor in the cost of the armor hauberk cost over $800.
There's all sorts of factors going in to the defense of chain mail likely patterns ring size and metallurgy.
Most of this armor was used in conjunction with other forms of armor for example jacks(a later period armor of bowman) Which comes in several configurations and is basically multiple layers(12 or more) of linen with some form of padding material like grass.
I do not have much information on the exact layers of material that would have been warned in that earlier time period in conjunction with chain mail figure will be linen and wool.
But you're on the West Coast, and I'm on the East Coast so I'll have to pass supplying you with the chain mail target .
Miles
-
Iv'e been reading this and really know nothing about mail except of the Conquistidors and what you guy's are discussing. Which by the way is fasinating. I do know and it is a fact ,that the Timuacan Indians in Florida at the time of the Spanish exploration were reported to be shooting 90 to 120# bows.They were shooting cane arrows and there is numerous recordings in history of the chainmail being penetrated by cane arrows,splintering and soldiers dieing from infection in the tropical heat.This includes Hernando DeSoto hisself,buried in the Mississippi River.The arrows in question were almost always fire hardend sharpened cane points.
-
Some great info on alternative armours has surfaced but its still not the type of thick padded garment we see appearing in the mid 12thC. However it probably seems I'm splitting hairs here so we can safely say some form of padding needs to be under the maille for the test. Having seen what an arrow 11/32 with short and long bodkins shot from a 60lb bow will do to maille I'd say you would need a lot of padding to slow an arrow down and I would say to much padding would have to be worn in most circumstances to bo practicall to fight in.
-
Interresting, how about at longer ranges. Can the lighter bows with lighter arrows still penetrate at the greater distances? I would think to put an arrow out to 200 or more yards with a 11/32 or 3/8" arrow would need at least 70#'s and maybe 80# weight of draw. I think the Saxon erra and Norman erra's may be a bit early for the warbow. Seems like it was not untill a bit later when they started using them in massed ranks in battle.
I think if we can get ahold of some chain mail and padding we can mail arround to people with different weight warbow we can have each person test with their own bows at different ranges.
David T
-
The test we did was only at 20 metres but the ease of which it went through makes me think that if it had been hit by a plunging arrow at the bows max range it still would have gone through. I think the amount of padding is what will decide the arrow wieght and bow power needed to get decent penertration.In our test the the maille was drapped over some hession covered cardboard as we didn't have any akertons handy, however its worth noting that the wieght of maille (and its a lot heavier then plate armour) will compress the padding underneath to a certain degree lessening its effectiveness and padding over armour doesn't seem to have been common untill mid to late fourteenth C.
-
So if we can find a bow that shoots arround 200 - 240 yards with light arrows with points from that erra we should get a realistic test? Cant wait to try it. Now to put everything together! ;D
-
I'm posting this picture because it's neat looking target is repo 15th-century Jack with riveted chain mail but the test was performed with too light a bow 65 pounds and arrows were just 3/8" using needlepoint bodkins type 7 made by historic enterprise’s shooting from 40 yards this something one my friends was doing.
He has a Norman Kit and armor but I doubt to let us shoot at that.
The linen jack was 15 layers with wool padding it weighs about as much as a Vietnam era flak jacket the chain now I believe was 8mm riveted.
We've been talking about doing test with the heavier bows 90 plus pounds and bigger 1/2" wararrows but most of the stuff I'm testing is 15th-century but I'll ask the guys I know who studied the earlier time periods pre-12th-century what they used see what I can come up with.
Miles
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Great photo Miles, great stuff. Just bear in mind that jacks were usually a stand alone armour for lesser troops though I've no doubt those who could afford it would perhaps have worn plate or maille with it though it might be a bit heavy and cumbersome when worn wiyh other armours.
-
Miles,
That looks pretty thin to me. Is it multiple layers of linen with a single layer of wool padding?
And what is the thread count and weight of the linen?
I sent a collection of linen samples (from Russell and Chapple) to a contact at the Royal Armouries as a basis for comparison after they were unable to answer a similar question about padded jacks.
Some time ago I put the sleeve of a padded jack on a hard Egertec straw boss and shot a standard arrow at 15 paces from a 60lb bow and penetrated the jack but got only about 1 1/2" of penetration into the boss. But the same sleeve on a foam field but got several inches of penetration.
The point of this is that unless ALL the elements in any test are truly representative of the real target of a war shaft, the results mean little.
It is necessary to reproduce ALL the elements of the target, not just one or two of them.
Despite what Jaro says about bulk a 14thC aketon worn over maille or a stand alone padded jack would have a lot more bulk than that. Your example looks more like what might be worn under plate.
Rod.
-
Her's a thread from the sword forum,the armour guy's are of the opinion that mail protects very well against arrows.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=45006
A lot of it is the usual nonsence but there's some intersting stuff there :D.
-
it's a jack used separately or it can be worn in conjunction with other armors.
Here's the way I understand it for protection
a jack of 30 layers of linen can stand alone
a jack of 25 layers and a leather shell can also stand alone
a jack of 10 or more layers should have a maille shirt with it
a jack that is several layers of canvas stuffed with raw wool, grass, horse hair or what ever they would've had and used.
From the ordinance of St. Maximin de Treves , published October of 1473.
In the section describing the equipment of members of a lance - specifically the mounted archer "The mounted archer must possess a horse worth not less than six francs, and should wear a visorless sallet, a gorget (This may mean a maille standard or bevor), a brigandine, or a sleeveless mail shirt under a ten layer jack"
From the Ordinances of Louis XI of France (1461-1483)
And first they must have for the said Jacks, 30, or at least 25 folds of cloth and a stag's skin; those of 30, with the stag's skin, being the best cloth that has been worn and rendered flexible, is best for this purpose, and these Jacks should be made in four quarters. The sleeves should be as strong as the body, with the exception of the leather, and the arm-hole of the sleeve must be large, which arm-hole should be placed near the collar, not on the bone of the shoulder, that it may be broad under the armpit and full under the arm, sufficiently ample and large on the sides below. The collar should be like the rest of the Jack, but not too high behind, to allow room for the sallet. This Jack should be laced in front, and under the opening must be a hanging piece [porte piece] of the same strength as the Jack itself. Thus the Jack will be secure and easy, provided that there be a doublet [pourpoint] without sleeves or collar, of two folds of cloth, that shall be only four fingers broad on the shoulder; to which doublet shall be attached the chausses. Thus shall the wearer float, as it were, within his jack and be at his ease; for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."
1st. Picture Here's a better view of the jack from the side you can see it's thick it has over 15 layers of linen and un-woven raw wool padding to do not have a thread count on it at this time but I'm sure my friend will probably have the thread count.
I haven't started construction on my personal jack my linen was obtained from colonial Williamsburg Virginia is handwoven (so I don't know what the we've count is on it) which I figure it will probably be very much in the ballpark of the proper jack although mine will be with the breastplate and chain mail on basing my armor off of the Hans Memling St Ursula shrine artwork.2nd. Picture
The photo of the Jack was not a arming doublet or a arming pourpoint (the little sleeveless vest designed to attach and hold up the plate leg armor of a harness) those armor undergarments have a lot of eyelets to tie the armor in place late 15th-century armor.
Here's a picture of a blue arming doublet note the chain mill around the shoulders and around arms is used protect where in the parts that the plate armor doesn't fully cover note to laces coming from the shoulder’s social for attaching the polderons basically the metal shoulder pads.3rd. Picture
Here he is in full Milanese armor.4th. Picture
It seems no real evidence exists for the use of padded armor under chain mail during the 11th century Norman conquest and since bows were not regularly used in war for some dark age reason longbows wher used for hunting the time and sense they seen to be commonly used in Wales so what type of game wood they been hunting stags and boars maybe?
What type of terrain wood they been hunting on?
What type of poundage wood you need to hunt that game in that terrain?
Cheers,
Miles
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And Pic 3 and 4
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I hate to shoot and run ;D
[attachment deleted by admin]