5 ms·

The article's point about the lethality of arrows.. I feel like every Youtube test I've seen on the subject shows that Arrows can pierce even full plate pretty

by make3 1y ago

The article's point about the lethality of arrows.. I feel like every Youtube test I've seen on the subject shows that Arrows can pierce even full plate pretty reasonably easily, though this is not scientific at all ofc.

cwmma 1y ago
He has an entire article on the subject[1]. Basically when you take into account distance and angles penetration is much harder. 1. https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-and-kiting/ https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-a...
wchar_t 1y ago
Not plate, unless at very close range and at a very favorable angle. Mail, sure.
- kybernetikos 1y ago
  I don't think 'plate' was a standard kind of quality either, so while the top quality plate might be effectively impervious to arrows except for an unlikely lucky splintering shot into a weak point or gap, there were probably lots of thinner, less coverage providing plate armours where the probability of defeat was still very low, but not completely zero.
iamthemonster 1y ago
Check out Tod's Workshop youtube channel. It's only entertainment, but he has a far more realistic overall testing of arrows' armour-piercing capability. A lot of the tests are firing perpendicularly at plate armour that's held in front of a hard surface with no gambeson underneath. When you take account of arrows often arriving at a slight angle, and humans are a movable pile of meat covered in thick cloth with plate on top, then the ability to penetrate deep enough to cause a significant wound is reduced. Never eliminated though! But if arrows really did pierce plate armour, and I was a knight in a battle then I'd just get myself a 6 foot tall 3 foot wide, heavy wooden shield and hide behind it until I got to close quarters. But the fact is people didn't bother doing this because they found a less cumbersome shield more effective, and that suggests that rich plate-armour-clad knights weren't dying left right and centre from arrow fire.
- p_ing 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#History > [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. I wouldn't want to be shot by one, regardless.
  - lmm 1y ago
    That's likely talking about a shot at close quarters (from the strongest kind of pre-modern bows in the world), the chausses the arrow went through would have been mail not plate, and horses are much less resilient than humans. Of course longbows could and did kill - they wouldn't have been used in war otherwise! But they did not routinely kill through plate armour at range.
    - cess11 1y ago
      Not sure what you mean by "strongest", but you might want to make a comparison with mongol composite bows. I'm also not sure what you mean by "resilient", but horses running around dragging their intestines on the ground for half an hour is not uncommon in 'gore' material from bullfighting events gone wrong. I have yet to see a human do something similar. Horses are domesticated from prey animals, they are very good at ignoring pain and wounds and still getting away.
      - lmm 1y ago
        > Not sure what you mean by "strongest", but you might want to make a comparison with mongol composite bows. I believe it's generally accepted that the longbows we're talking about delivered arrows with more force than Mongol composite bows. > I'm also not sure what you mean by "resilient", but horses running around dragging their intestines on the ground for half an hour is not uncommon in 'gore' material from bullfighting events gone wrong. I have yet to see a human do something similar. Horses are domesticated from prey animals, they are very good at ignoring pain and wounds and still getting away. Horses are notoriously fragile. The quote does not say that the horse died instantly, merely that it died.
hinkley 1y ago
Angles matter. There’s a famous rout that happened in France where an English army overstayed its welcome and was trying to make its way back to England when the locals decided it would be better to never have to deal with them again by finishing it now. I thought it was William of Orange but I cannot find anything to corroborate that. They pinned his army down with a fresher army meaning to destroy them. The English infantry and cavalry were vastly outnumbered due to attrition, but what he did have were longbows. And somehow they beat a superior army while losing a fraction as many men. The historical military analysis I saw was that with the front lines so thin, the archers essentially didn’t have to fire long arching volleys. The flatter angle of the arrow trajectory and shorter flight distance increased the penetration force, and they just absolutely destroyed every charge against them, confusing the attacking army. Arrows should not be dropping this many men. WTF.
- alangou 1y ago
  You must be referring to the Battle of Agincourt, as Henry V was heading back to Calais after laying a too-prolonged siege of Harfleur, during the 100 Years War.
  - hinkley 1y ago
    Agincourt sounds right. Thanks.
    - scheme271 1y ago
      If it's Agincourt, then Bret talks about it quite a bit in the article. Essentially, it was the best case scenario for bows and even then both the French infantry and cavalry were able to advance and get to the English lines. However, both were weakened enough that they were defeated by the English forces waiting for them.
hoseja 1y ago
You saw them shooting at bad temu imitation plate armor.
ekianjo 1y ago
Chain mail is usually effective against arrows I believe?
- hirvi74 1y ago
  Better than nothing, but not very effective. Plate armor was the most effective, but not perfect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyOIZ4Vm_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyOIZ4Vm_I
alpaca128 1y ago
In a YouTube test I have seen (Todd's Workshop) their plate armor didn't really care about a 100kg draw weight longbow. Though if I remember correctly they said it's possible it would have done a bit of damage back then depending on material quality.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  >their plate armor didn't really care about a 100kg draw weight longbow. And at pretty close range. Plate armour very effective at stopping arrows and blades, otherwise they wouldn't have worn it.

by make3 1y ago

cwmma 1y ago

He has an entire article on the subject[1]. Basically when you take into account distance and angles penetration is much harder. 1. https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-and-kiting/ https://acoup.blog/2019/07/04/collections-archery-distance-a...

wchar_t 1y ago

Not plate, unless at very close range and at a very favorable angle. Mail, sure.

kybernetikos 1y ago
I don't think 'plate' was a standard kind of quality either, so while the top quality plate might be effectively impervious to arrows except for an unlikely lucky splintering shot into a weak point or gap, there were probably lots of thinner, less coverage providing plate armours where the probability of defeat was still very low, but not completely zero.

iamthemonster 1y ago

Check out Tod's Workshop youtube channel. It's only entertainment, but he has a far more realistic overall testing of arrows' armour-piercing capability. A lot of the tests are firing perpendicularly at plate armour that's held in front of a hard surface with no gambeson underneath. When you take account of arrows often arriving at a slight angle, and humans are a movable pile of meat covered in thick cloth with plate on top, then the ability to penetrate deep enough to cause a significant wound is reduced. Never eliminated though! But if arrows really did pierce plate armour, and I was a knight in a battle then I'd just get myself a 6 foot tall 3 foot wide, heavy wooden shield and hide behind it until I got to close quarters. But the fact is people didn't bother doing this because they found a less cumbersome shield more effective, and that suggests that rich plate-armour-clad knights weren't dying left right and centre from arrow fire.

p_ing 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#History > [I]n the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron chausses, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. I wouldn't want to be shot by one, regardless.
- lmm 1y ago
  That's likely talking about a shot at close quarters (from the strongest kind of pre-modern bows in the world), the chausses the arrow went through would have been mail not plate, and horses are much less resilient than humans. Of course longbows could and did kill - they wouldn't have been used in war otherwise! But they did not routinely kill through plate armour at range.
  - cess11 1y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "strongest", but you might want to make a comparison with mongol composite bows. I'm also not sure what you mean by "resilient", but horses running around dragging their intestines on the ground for half an hour is not uncommon in 'gore' material from bullfighting events gone wrong. I have yet to see a human do something similar. Horses are domesticated from prey animals, they are very good at ignoring pain and wounds and still getting away.
    - lmm 1y ago
      > Not sure what you mean by "strongest", but you might want to make a comparison with mongol composite bows. I believe it's generally accepted that the longbows we're talking about delivered arrows with more force than Mongol composite bows. > I'm also not sure what you mean by "resilient", but horses running around dragging their intestines on the ground for half an hour is not uncommon in 'gore' material from bullfighting events gone wrong. I have yet to see a human do something similar. Horses are domesticated from prey animals, they are very good at ignoring pain and wounds and still getting away. Horses are notoriously fragile. The quote does not say that the horse died instantly, merely that it died.

hinkley 1y ago

Angles matter. There’s a famous rout that happened in France where an English army overstayed its welcome and was trying to make its way back to England when the locals decided it would be better to never have to deal with them again by finishing it now. I thought it was William of Orange but I cannot find anything to corroborate that. They pinned his army down with a fresher army meaning to destroy them. The English infantry and cavalry were vastly outnumbered due to attrition, but what he did have were longbows. And somehow they beat a superior army while losing a fraction as many men. The historical military analysis I saw was that with the front lines so thin, the archers essentially didn’t have to fire long arching volleys. The flatter angle of the arrow trajectory and shorter flight distance increased the penetration force, and they just absolutely destroyed every charge against them, confusing the attacking army. Arrows should not be dropping this many men. WTF.

alangou 1y ago
You must be referring to the Battle of Agincourt, as Henry V was heading back to Calais after laying a too-prolonged siege of Harfleur, during the 100 Years War.
- hinkley 1y ago
  Agincourt sounds right. Thanks.
  - scheme271 1y ago
    If it's Agincourt, then Bret talks about it quite a bit in the article. Essentially, it was the best case scenario for bows and even then both the French infantry and cavalry were able to advance and get to the English lines. However, both were weakened enough that they were defeated by the English forces waiting for them.

hoseja 1y ago

You saw them shooting at bad temu imitation plate armor.

ekianjo 1y ago

Chain mail is usually effective against arrows I believe?

hirvi74 1y ago
Better than nothing, but not very effective. Plate armor was the most effective, but not perfect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyOIZ4Vm_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyOIZ4Vm_I

alpaca128 1y ago

In a YouTube test I have seen (Todd's Workshop) their plate armor didn't really care about a 100kg draw weight longbow. Though if I remember correctly they said it's possible it would have done a bit of damage back then depending on material quality.

hermitcrab 1y ago
>their plate armor didn't really care about a 100kg draw weight longbow. And at pretty close range. Plate armour very effective at stopping arrows and blades, otherwise they wouldn't have worn it.