History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
Vertigowooyay
Snowbonk
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Vertigowooyay » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:15 pm

Martin Y wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:10 pm
Wikipedia suggests more than 2 sheaves per man; perhaps 60-72 arrows each, and boys tasked with resupply during battle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_l ... oting_rate

It also mentions the very heavy draw weight of these bows meant high rates of fire couldn't be sustained as it was simply too exhausting. I hadn't really considered that the medieval laws requiring archery practice weren't just about developing skills, they were about building the required musculature.
Many of the skeletons on the Mary Rose showed similar shoulder and back long term strain injuries - they identified these as the elite archers from the injury pattern.
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.

Gawdzilla Sama
Clardic Fug
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:36 pm

I've seen two schools of thought on pulling a heavy bow. One is straight arm the bow and then pull the string. The other is hold the string and then straight arm the bow. Do we know which method was used historical in Britain?

User avatar
bjn
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: London

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by bjn » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:57 pm

jimbob wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:15 pm
bolo wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 6:06 pm
Air resistance is probably not negligible for arrows, so an angle less than 45 degrees may actually get you more range.
And lift.

The first video in the series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE

explained how they tested their best reproduction bows, arrows and armour, and the choice of draw weight for the bow.
I watched that a few weeks ago. Armour works really bl..dy well. You don't carry an extra 25/30kg around a battlefield if it doesn't serve a purpose. My sword fighty club has run some experiments where we smack armour about with a range of sharp weapons. A mate had an old spare breastplate* and there was literally nothing that would go through it. Spears, swords, daggers, 6ft pole axes swung with both hands as hard as we could. Definitely deformation, dings and scratches, but no penetration. Possibly might cause penetrate against the thinner plate on arms and legs, but you'd need to have the armour braced against something like a wall, otherwise it would just be pushed out of the way.

I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the heavier attacks, probably concussion if a head strike, but you're going to survive one helluva lot of punishment. You're not indestructible in plate harness, but you are a goddam tank in comparison to the unarmoured folk on the field.

However mail, albeit modern sh.tty reproduction mail, was easily penetrated by a thrust. Pretty durable against slashing though.

There's another interesting vid of Todd shooting a a 1250lb crossbow. One of the speculations about the rise of plate harness was the invention of the steel crossbow prod. As metallurgy improved, you could reliably make crossbows of increasingly draw weight. This drove the evolution of plate protection to counter the damage caused, using the same improved metallurgy. A small arms race ensued and by the start of the C15th you are head to toe shiny hard steel on the battlefield.

Also, Kevin Legg, the armourer in that video, made my harness.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by jimbob » Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:22 am

Indeed bjn. Ine of the things I'd heard about Agincourt was the sheer press of French men at arms in the centre. I wonder if a lot of it was them being forced to button up so having poor situational awareness and poor footing in the mud causing people to fall if they temporarily lost their footing.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Martin Y
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3080
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Martin Y » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:25 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:36 pm
I've seen two schools of thought on pulling a heavy bow. One is straight arm the bow and then pull the string. The other is hold the string and then straight arm the bow. Do we know which method was used historical in Britain?
The wiki link I posted above also includes a contemporary reference on how the English learned to draw their bows: "[My yeoman father] taught me how to draw, how to lay my body in my bow ... not to draw with strength of arms as divers other nations do"

What that means is (somewhat) explained by another quote from a late 18th century source: "the Englishman did not keep his left hand steady, and draw his bow with his right; but keeping his right at rest upon the nerve, he pressed the whole weight of his body into the horns of his bow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_l ... aw_weights

That sounds like the latter of your techniques but <shrug> I have no real clue.

Gawdzilla Sama
Clardic Fug
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:27 am

Sounds dead bang to me. I saw the woads in "Arthur" doing that. Including Keira Knightley, who weighed less than the draw on her bow. :roll:

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by noggins » Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:00 pm

Isnt the power of the longbow volley that you don't have to pierce Sir Fancypants and his horse's state of the art armour?
You only have to stick a few of the worst armoured squires and hangers on. Their horses go down, then everyone else tumbles over them.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by jimbob » Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:56 pm

noggins wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 12:00 pm
Isnt the power of the longbow volley that you don't have to pierce Sir Fancypants and his horse's state of the art armour?
You only have to stick a few of the worst armoured squires and hangers on. Their horses go down, then everyone else tumbles over them.
Not at Agincourt, where the main French attack was on foot. After the cavalry attack.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Grumble » Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:03 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:48 pm
But then the Brit line troops at Agincourt weren't wearing pants.
Yes they were, those with dysentery were sent home well before Agincourt. That myth is specifically addressed in the video in the OP. One of my ancestors was amongst those sent home from Harfleur, the records are very good.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by JQH » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:14 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:48 pm
Martin Y wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:20 pm
It was an interesting discussion though. An archer might have been capable of getting, or even sustaining, three arrows in flight at a time, but how effectively and for how long before he ran out of arrows? Just how many arrows might an individual archer have typically carried?

I can see the point of a tactic of using archers at the limit of their range, dropping a sufficient number of arrows onto a mass of French knights to harass them and provoke them into attacking before further French forces arrived, but the chances of an individual shot actually striking a man or horse in that way must have been fairly low.
As I understand it they were to track on the charging forces. Obviously as the range shortened they wouldn't have been able to keep to the three in the air orders, but having a wall of armored knight and horse coming at you would provide a wee bit of adrenaline that might have caused them to break records both in the arrow firing category and the messy trous category.

But then the Brit English line troops at Agincourt weren't wearing pants.
FIFY. Wouldn't have been many Scots there.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Gfamily » Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:45 pm

JQH wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:14 pm
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:48 pm
Martin Y wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:20 pm
It was an interesting discussion though. An archer might have been capable of getting, or even sustaining, three arrows in flight at a time, but how effectively and for how long before he ran out of arrows? Just how many arrows might an individual archer have typically carried?

I can see the point of a tactic of using archers at the limit of their range, dropping a sufficient number of arrows onto a mass of French knights to harass them and provoke them into attacking before further French forces arrived, but the chances of an individual shot actually striking a man or horse in that way must have been fairly low.
As I understand it they were to track on the charging forces. Obviously as the range shortened they wouldn't have been able to keep to the three in the air orders, but having a wall of armored knight and horse coming at you would provide a wee bit of adrenaline that might have caused them to break records both in the arrow firing category and the messy trous category.

But then the Brit English Brit line troops at Agincourt weren't wearing pants.
FIFY. Wouldn't have been many Scots there.
FIBFY Lots of Welshmen though
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Little waster » Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:18 pm

Gfamily wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:45 pm

FIBFY Lots of Welshmen though
Cheaper than arrows IIRC.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

Cousin Itt
Bank Butt
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:00 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Cousin Itt » Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:19 pm

This suggests fewer Welshmen than I had thought.

http://www.agincourt600.com/2015/10/03/ ... agincourt/

Gawdzilla Sama
Clardic Fug
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: History nerds on Agincourt and experimental archaelology

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 26, 2019 3:25 pm

Grumble wrote:
Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:03 pm
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 4:48 pm
But then the Brit line troops at Agincourt weren't wearing pants.
Yes they were, those with dysentery were sent home well before Agincourt. That myth is specifically addressed in the video in the OP. One of my ancestors was amongst those sent home from Harfleur, the records are very good.
Thanks, I alway appreciate the straight skinny.

Post Reply