Medieval Weapons

[Angilion]

[..] It worked in some circumstances. But plate armour kept changing, too. Why would it do that, if it worked so well, do you think?
Why are there various designs of plate bodkin arrows throughout the centuries, if they didn't work?
Why are people fighting with useless weapons, having their population train every Sunday from the age of 7, in the use of a pointless weapon, if they didn't work?
Why are the English famed for their useless weapons?

Makes no sense...

So why write it?

You're taking a typically extremist position, namely that the only things that can possibly exist are the two most extreme and opposing positions. Given that, it's not surprising that you sometimes write things that make no sense because reality is very rarely if ever like that.

Saying that armour worked is not saying that armour was absolutely invulnerable at all times in all circumstances, absolutely 100% total invulnerability that renders weapons completely useless. It simply isn't true that the only possible options are that arrows are completely useless against armour or that armour is completely useless against arrows.

There were various designs of bodkin arrowheads, but that doesn't mean they were designed for penetrating plate armour (or that they could do so). Mail is a much more obvious target for bodkin arrowhead design.

The fact that high quality full plate armour worked (and worked very well) would have been a very serious problem (though not completely nonsensical - see below) if everyone wore high quality full plate armour, but that was very far from being the case as you said yourself immediately afterwards:

For the nobility commanding, yeah plate was the order of the day... but the vast majority of their soldiers would have a cuirass over a gambeson, with maybe some maille between, and a sallet or similar helmet upon their noggin. The front line infantry did not fight in full plate, or anything close. Those are the main lot you need to kill, but if you happen to peg one of the nobs, it's OK... it's preferable to capture your enemy Nobs, though, as they're worth money in ransom.

The best case scenario for an army in that situation would be for their enemy to have plate armour that was completely invulnerable to arrows. That way the relatively few enemy soldiers rich enough to have full plate armour could be captured and ransomed more efficiently since they would be unharmed but vastly outnumbered after the less armoured soldiers were killed or fled or surrendered. Which was fairly close to what happened sometimes...because armour worked. Which is why people wore armour and wore the best armour they could get.

As for plate armour and arrows and nonsensicality...

Massed bow use makes sense even when against people wearing armour that gives extremely high protection against arrows. Even if only 1 hit in 100 did anything useful (to the side shooting the arrows), that's still useful if that army shoots enough arrows and medieval English armies shot a hell of a lot of arrows. Also relevant is the fact that quite a lot of the people who were wearing good quality full plate armour were mounted and their horses weren't armoured anywhere near as well if at all. Falling from a running horse that's been shot is likely to be a big problem for the rider. That's a lot of blunt force when they hit the ground. It's also a screaming, thrashing horse, which is both dangerous and bad for morale, and it's one less cavalry even if the rider was unharmed.

As for arrow vs breastplate, getting into that argument is as useful as gettiing into a katana argument and I'm not going to bother. There are plenty of videos for both extremes and some for a more reasoned point of view.

 

[ttaskmaster]

thing is, whilst sure plate armour might not be proof against a good hit from a good bow, i'm pretty sure i'd rather face getting shot at in plate armour over the gambesons/mail of the time, given it'll still reflect a blow mail wouldnt.

Me too and I'm in no way denying the chances of armour helping immensely in many respects.
However, I still challenge the earlier poster's assertion that an arrow capable of punching several inches through plate armour, possibly maille, and also a gambeson beneath, is somehow unable to hurt a bear...

So why write it?

Because the answers are obvious.

You're taking a typically extremist position, namely that the only things that can possibly exist are the two most extreme and opposing positions.

Not at all.
Either things worked and were used because of that, or they didn't and were abandoned. I say nothing either way in respect of how well, how often, or in which contexts they may have worked, unless specifically relevant to the scenarios in question.
Case in point - This battlefield version of the quarterstaff. It worked and worked well enough that its merits were ranked next to other weapons.... but I'd still rather have a forest bill, given the choice.

Given that, it's not surprising that you sometimes write things that make no sense because reality is very rarely if ever like that.

The "reality" includes many other variables around which you realistically can neither plan or converse, without the background to explain and explore the various details. For example, the range of movements, techniques and principles that support the quarterstaff reach and power over the sword. There are entire books that go into just that and it's not easily summed up in a single forum post.
Since I'm not prepared to post all that from my side, if you want to go away and do a lot of reading and/or training, I'll wait. Or you can focus on just the one or two specific details and we go round and round.

It simply isn't true that the only possible options are that arrows are completely useless against armour or that armour is completely useless against arrows.

But they are useless against bear hide, apparently, which is what this whole thing is in response to.

There were various designs of bodkin arrowheads, but that doesn't mean they were designed for penetrating plate armour (or that they could do so).

Well, I felt it a pretty fair assumption that the names - Plate bodkin, plate armour chisel, etc - had some kind of clue as to their purpose there, ya know, particularly when there are other variants like the maille bodkin. Same for a horse galling arrow - One assumes it was designed for galling horses, not spit-roasting chickens, no?

Mail is a much more obvious target for bodkin arrowhead design.

The longer, thinner ones, yeah. Plate bodkins tend to be shorter, perhaps fatter, and more like a centrepunch.

That way the relatively few enemy soldiers rich enough to have full plate armour could be captured and ransomed more efficiently since they would be unharmed but vastly outnumbered after the less armoured soldiers were killed or fled or surrendered.

Armour was only a part of that though and more often worn as defence against melee weapons, since they'd still need to be captured by hand. The majority would try and stay out of arrow range as much as possible, especially since the greater threat was the actual infantry and enemy archers, rather than the nobles commanding them.

As for arrow vs breastplate, getting into that argument is as useful as gettiing into a katana argument and I'm not going to bother. There are plenty of videos for both extremes and some for a more reasoned point of view.

But the basic science holds - Flat plate flexes, curved does not.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Not at all. [..]

Yes, rather a lot. The only options you referred to were arrows punching through plate, chain and gambeson and penetrating nine inches or bows being useless. One extreme or the other.

 

[adolf hamster]

Me too and I'm in no way denying the chances of armour helping immensely in many respects.
However, I still challenge the earlier poster's assertion that an arrow capable of punching several inches through plate armour, possibly maille, and also a gambeson beneath, is somehow unable to hurt a bear...

kinetic energy wise i'll agree to that, but arrow design factors in here too, after all the specialist armour peircing arrow exists for the same reason you don't use a 5-7 to hunt bears today.

shot placement is going to be the biggest factor by far though, which invokes the ol' training argument.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yes, rather a lot. The only options you referred to were arrows punching through plate, chain and gambeson and penetrating nine inches or bows being useless. One extreme or the other.

In this context, that's all that's needed - Either it works or it doesn't. If it works, people would need to evolve armour. If it didn't, they wouldn't.
They did, so it did and the argument presented falls apart.

kinetic energy wise i'll agree to that, but arrow design factors in here too, after all the specialist armour peircing arrow exists for the same reason you don't use a 5-7 to hunt bears today.

Agreed, but I'd add that the hunting designs are designed to cause massive blood loss and/or internal injury in order to kill as quickly as possible... while plate arrows are designed simply to pierce plate armour and render someone a screaming casualty that will upset their fellows, with any death being an added bonus.

shot placement is going to be the biggest factor by far though, which invokes the ol' training argument.

Also agreed.
I believe I had assumed full training would come with the bow, in order to fairly combat this supposedly unstoppable rampaging Skyrim zombie bear thing... otherwise what is the point in letting people choose a weapon they have neither skill in nor knowledge of?

 

[Angilion]

In this context, that's all that's needed - Either it works or it doesn't. If it works, people would need to evolve armour. If it didn't, they wouldn't.
They did, so it did and the argument presented falls apart. [..]

Thank you for supporting my point - you're oblivious to anything other than absolute extremes. You're arguing that either armour is useless (armour doesn't work) or bows are useless (armour works) and that's that. That's not realistic and that's why your argument falls apart.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Thank you for supporting my point - you're oblivious to anything other than absolute extremes. You're arguing that either armour is useless (armour doesn't work) or bows are useless (armour works) and that's that. That's not realistic and that's why your argument falls apart.

No I'm not arguing that - You're just assuming I am so you can argue back against it.

In this context, there are ONLY the two options - Earlier poster says something is not possible, while centuries of arms and armour development prove it not only was possible but happened enough to drive further development on both sides.

So it *IS* a simple one or the other - Either an arrow *CAN* penetrate plate armour or it *CANNOT*.... if it can, then it can certainly penetrate a bear hide. Since it obviously can, with both historical and modern evidence, it can penetrate the bear hide.

That's all there is to the argument....

Unless we want to follow your train and explore every possible context under which each type of arrow may or may not penetrate one of many many many different armours, rendering both one of many many many different degrees of useless or effective.... not forgetting, of course, all the additional variables to then determine and argue about the actual likelihoods, depending on circumstances?
Is that what you're after?

 

[Angilion]

No I'm not arguing that - You're just assuming I am so you can argue back against it.

In this context, there are ONLY the two options - Earlier poster says something is not possible, while centuries of arms and armour development prove it not only was possible but happened enough to drive further development on both sides.

So it *IS* a simple one or the other - Either an arrow *CAN* penetrate plate armour or it *CANNOT*.... if it can, then it can certainly penetrate a bear hide. Since it obviously can, with both historical and modern evidence, it can penetrate the bear hide.

That's all there is to the argument....[..]

Follow the quotes back up and you'll find the actual context, which was not shooting bears. Not unless you're arguing that the sole purpose of the longbow in medieval England was hunting bears that were wearing full plate armour.

You posted objecting to the idea that plate armour worked, since it's your belief that an arrow will penetrate plate, mail, gambeson and 9 inches of human body and thus that plate armour was useless against arrows. You typically allow for the existence of only the two most extreme cases, so you assume that it plate armour wasn't utterly useless then bows and arrows must be utterly useless, hence your reply:

"Why are people fighting with useless weapons, having their population train every Sunday from the age of 7, in the use of a pointless weapon, if they didn't work?
Why are the English famed for their useless weapons?

Makes no sense..."

Things made up to support a false image of only the two most extreme cases being possible usually don't make sense. Changing contexts usually results in nonsense too. In this case, the idea that the sole purpose of the longbow in medieval England was hunting bears wearing plate armour.

The original post was a question about animals that attack always to the death, i.e. very unlike real animals and very like animals in fantasy games. In that context, bears might be wearing plate armour. But not in England in the real world during the period of time in which archery was an important part of war, which was the context you were very clearly referring to.

 

[dowie]

In this thread, everyone is Castiel. Just think about that for a minute

 

[Madwelsh]

lol, having waded through this thread at various points in my life, who won? Was it Task or Ang? If it's still going, what's the betting looking like.. these guys should have been back in medieval times, there would have been no slaughter (even with a staff!) I think everyone would have gone home.

 

[asim18]

 

[ttaskmaster]

Follow the quotes back up and you'll find the actual context, which was not shooting bears. Not unless you're arguing that the sole purpose of the longbow in medieval England was hunting bears that were wearing full plate armour.

Follow the thread further back, to posts dealing with Avenged7Fold and you'll see it really is about bears in the first place.

You posted objecting to the idea that plate armour worked, since it's your belief that an arrow will penetrate plate, mail, gambeson and 9 inches of human body and thus that plate armour was useless against arrows.

Actually it's my understanding, based on numerous sources that it will. You simply said you "don't think" it will.
I also posted that armour will work under some circumstances, the clear implication being not all, though and gave reasons why.

You typically allow for the existence of only the two most extreme cases

Will an arrow penetrate a bear hide - Yes or no. Those are the only two sides under debate, here.
If you believe otherwise, do explain exactly what you think all these other cases are....

so you assume that it plate armour wasn't utterly useless then bows and arrows must be utterly useless, hence your reply:

Not in the slightest.
As Adolf Hamster pointed out, the effectiveness of each, or lack thereof, is what drove the development of the other.
But since there are so many variable involved in measuring how effective either was, that's beyond the basic scope of the debate here and thus irrelevant.

In this case, the idea that the sole purpose of the longbow in medieval England was hunting bears wearing plate armour.

Who mentioned them wearing plate armour?
We might have compared plate armour to bear hide, but that's it. Anything else you're inferring from that is just your own strawman argument, mate!

The original post was a question about animals that attack always to the death

No it wasn't!!!
The OP quite clearly says "life or death situation", meaning either you do something or you die. Nothing about these animals being unstoppable enraged killing machines wearing mediaeval plate. Part of that was an assumption by a subsequent poster and the rest is your own mind.

But not in England in the real world during the period of time in which archery was an important part of war, which was the context you were very clearly referring to.

OK, so in the context of medieval England - How tough was a bear hide, then, conmpared to plate armour?
In the unspecified context of these undetailed fantasy attacking animals that you seem to be assuming are the OP's intent, how tough is their magical hide compared to your fantasy plate mail and what do I have to roll on my magic fantasy arrows to punch through your invented flaws in what was a pretty sound and reasonable argument?

lol, having waded through this thread at various points in my life, who won?

I wasn't trying to win, just presenting the facts and the history behind how these things work. Since my "opponent" has somehow turned it into a magical fantasy debate, now, I guess I win the real life part and will just have to use my +30 Vorpal Blade of Death-Making against these plate-armoured bears, no...?

 

[Orionaut]

Not quite medieval,

But I remember a documentary some years ago about Classical Era Greek "Linen Armour"

Basically this was made up of multiple sheets of Linen bonded together with resin, Much like Kevlar composite today.

It was semi rigid and yet flexible and could be formed into lightweight loose fitting plates.

It was also very strong.

It was actually very good at protecting against arrows and even sword blows because rather than resisting the blow it would flex on contact taking all the energy out of the sword blow or arrow strike.

Arrows would just bounce off without penetrating.

 

[Tefal]

Right i have a quick question

long bow arrow is something like 3 feet long?


You fire hundreds/thousands of them in a high arc into a crowd regardless of the damage you do how hard is it to move through a feild of 3 foot wooden sticksnin the ground?

 

[Tefal]

So it *IS* a simple one or the other - Either an arrow *CAN* penetrate plate armour or it *CANNOT*

No its not.


Lets say an arrow csn peice plate at a perpendicular impact doesnt mean that plate cant defend/deflect an arrow at nearly every other angle.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Basically this was made up of multiple sheets of Linen bonded together with resin, Much like Kevlar composite today.

Yup. That was the idea behind the medieval gambeson, basically a thickly quilted jacket.
It worked sometimes, depending on circumstances.

long bow arrow is something like 3 feet long?

Give or take, yes.

how hard is it to move through a feild of 3 foot wooden sticksnin the ground?

You mean once they've landed and stuck into the ground?
Fairly easy, as the shafts will likely snap when you try to push through them, a bit like walking through a cornfield.

Lets say an arrow csn peice plate at a perpendicular impact doesnt mean that plate cant defend/deflect an arrow at nearly every other angle.

'Can' is not the same as 'always will'...
But for the purposes of the debate - it could and did often enough at enough different angles, that people tried to devise better armour.

 

[Lopéz]

If I'm ever magically transported back to medieval times I'll be seriously glad I bookmarked this thread.

 

[Tefal]

Yup. That was the idea behind the medieval gambeson, basically a thickly quilted jacket.
It worked sometimes, depending on circumstances.


Give or take, yes.


You mean once they've landed and stuck into the ground?
Fairly easy, as the shafts will likely snap when you try to push through them, a bit like walking through a cornfield.


'Can' is not the same as 'always will'...
But for the purposes of the debate - it could and did often enough at enough different angles, that people tried to devise better armour.

Fair enough i figured theyd end up like a feild of caltrops as they broke lots of spikes.

What i was saying is its not an absolute "plate stops arrows or it doest" its "it will andnit wont depending on the situation".


Same as any armour be it tank, ship or body it will always br a range

 

[ttaskmaster]

If I'm ever magically transported back to medieval times I'll be seriously glad I bookmarked this thread.

Until you realise that BT don't supply Ye Olde Towne of Longe-Bottome and can't access the bookmarks!!

Fair enough i figured theyd end up like a feild of caltrops as they broke lots of spikes.

The heads will go quite deep in, leaving just the wooden shafts and fletchings. You wouldn't want to trip over in that lot, but they'll snap off easy enough.

What i was saying is its not an absolute "plate stops arrows or it doest" its "it will andnit wont depending on the situation".

Yeah, I get'cha. Totally.
But for the particular situation in question, it was purely about whether something was possible or not... even though the more important aspect of the scenario was not whether it was possible, but exactly where it happened. That is to say, it's not about how likely the arrow would penetrate a bear hide (which it would, because it's perfectly capable of penetrating plate armour) but about whereabouts on the bear it penetrated.... fnar fnar!

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I wasn't trying to win, just presenting the facts and the history behind how these things work. Since my "opponent" has somehow turned it into a magical fantasy debate, now, I guess I win the real life part and will just have to use my +30 Vorpal Blade of Death-Making against these plate-armoured bears, no...?

You're swapping between the real world in England during the period of time in which bows were a widely used weapon and the bears of the original post (which had long since ceased to be the topic of the thread). You're also swapping between a false dichotomy of either armour or bows being useless and a more realistic position of both being useful though not perfect. If you settle down to one position, I might reply to it. As it stands, I don't see any point. We may as well just be silly about these rather unusually determined bears, so I'll disagree with your choice on the basis that everyone knows that vorpal blades are specialised for decapitation and the physiology of a bear would make that a very difficult stroke to pull off when they're coming at you. I suggest using a portal gun to create a portal near your enemies (it's a fantasy game, so everyone has enemies) and then make the other one right in front of the bears as they're charging. Then you can take the Iron Throne for yourself!