Scrutable

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Gfamily wrote: Tue Nov 26, 2019 2:45 pm
FIBFY Lots of Welshmen though

Cheaper than arrows IIRC.

This suggests fewer Welshmen than I had thought.

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

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.