How can an arrow breach through this???

Was longbowmen being able to kill French knights just English propaganda?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wasnt this armor invented in the 1400s? What did they used before?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      less plate and more chainmail

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ability of arrows and melee weapons to penetrate plate armor is widely corroborated by primary sources so it happened. Simple as.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on both the quality of the armor and of the arrow tip. is right; it did happen. But warbows didn't make armor obsolete either.

      Wasnt this armor invented in the 1400s? What did they used before?

      Full plate armor, like the one the OP, was developed in the later stages of the 15th century. Pic rel was made in 1484 by the famous Lorenz Helmschmid - probably for Maximilian I.
      Before that coats/jacks of plates & brigandines were the standard.

      How common were those armors in the battlefield anyway? Weren't heavy-armored knights some kind of aristocratic elite, mostly composed of cavalrymen? Probably light infantry and mercenaries didn't wore that stuff.

      Depends on what the individual could/was willing to afford or what was issued to him.
      Light infantry by definition forsook most armor but there were also very well armed and armored mercenary companies like the White Company. Getting definite numbers is hard, because (at least as far as I could tell) nobody really bother with those kinds of statistics before the 17th and 18th century.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Before that coats/jacks of plates & brigandines were the standard.
        This isn't really true. Pic related is based on an original around 100 years older than the Maximilian armour.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Medieval knight armor looks so moronic in real life yet so cool in video games and movies.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Probably a product of the people wearing them. An actor's job is to look good but some medievalist dork is going to look laughable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Light infantry by definition forsook most armor
        The "light" part units only defines their role in battle not equipment. There is nothing physically light about light infantry.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That armour isn't representative of what was worn at Agincourt. Modern tests have shown penetration on thinner pieces like the vambraces and - on more period appropriate armour - mail. In situations like Agincourt, which was a lot of arrows flying in at bogged down, barely mobile knights, some of the many hits were getting through and causing wounds, but the majority would still be glancing off, but it's as said. Longbows could take down men in 14th to 15th century armour, given the right conditions.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >arrows
      >penetrating plate armor
      >corroborated
      show me

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And then, when the enemy were nearly ready to attack, the French cavalry posted on the flanks made charges against those of our archers who were on both sides of our army.

        But soon, by God's will, they were forced to fall back under showers of arrows and to flee to their rearguard, save for a very few who, although not without losses in dead and wounded, rode through between the archers and the woodlands, and save, too, of course, for the many who were stopped by the stakes driven into the ground and prevented from fleeing very far by the stinging hail of missiles shot at both horses and riders in their flight.’

        ‘But the French nobility, who had previously advanced in line abreast and had all but come to grip with us, either from fear of the missiles which by their very force pierced the sides and visors of their helmets ...’

        The Gesta Henrici Quinti (c. 1417, Latin), Chapter 13.
        Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt Sources and interpretations p. 36

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        evidently placing trust in his armor and that of his companions, which for three years they had taken pains to improve ... strove to rush the archers,” the bowmen “pierced entirely through these armored men [armatos omnino penetrarent], drilling through their helmets [cassides terebrarent] ... and piercing through all their armor with ease [et omnem armaturam levi negotio transverberarent]. The earl of Douglas was pierced [confossus est] with v [5] wounds, notwithstanding his extremely costly [sumptuosissima] armor.” Brown, M.H. (2004). "Douglas, Archibald, fourth earl of Douglas". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

        "An English arrow with a little wax on the point of the head will pass through an ordinary corseletted or cuirass" Potritius (1544)

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think this is not so much a question of 'if' but rather a question of how 'reliably'.

          Modern experiments with period equipment show that plate armour is reliably capable of protecting against arrows, even at short distances. While the quality of historical equipment varied, so did the skill of archers and their capability to draw heavy war bows, which in experiments tend to be on the upper end. Most of the time, if penetration happens it's usually in-between gaps, sights, breaths, etc. rather than the plate itself.

          Ultimately, we find that plate armour has been around on battlefields longer than longbows. If it were defeated that easily, it wouldn't have been worn.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            At the end of the day there is no other explanation for the English victory at Crecy except for the obvious one: the arrows killed a lot of French knights and footmen.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Battle of Crécy happened in 1346. Plate armour was still in development at that time. OP's armour was around more than a hundred years later. Also, even at the Battle of Crécy there were other conditions involved, e.g. having to charge uphill through the mud and being greeted by English men-at-arms, who were positioned to protect the archers. The accounts speak of a particularly vicious melee. Had the battle been decided at distance the story would have probably been different.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The accounts speak of a particularly vicious melee. Had the battle been decided at distance the story would have probably been different.
            English casualties were trifling, suggesting that few of the French knights reached the English line. French casualties are said to have been 30,000, including the Kings of Bohemia and Majorca, the Duke of Lorraine, the Count of Flanders, the Count of Blois, eight other counts and three archbishops.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >English casualties were trifling, suggesting that few of the French knights reached the English line.
            I don't think that's necessarily the case. Having to run uphill through the mud and arriving tired, unorganised and not properly equipped for infantry combat would be enough reason to expect them to lose pretty badly - even if they hadn't been wounded by arrows. I would say the English victory at Crécy was due to combination of various factors, most of all terrain conditions that put the French at a severe disadvantage, rather than just the devastating power of the longbow. Not to mention that the answer of people was not "yeah, okay, plate armour doesn't seem to work we need to get ourselves some longbowmen - lots of them", but the answer was that they got more and better armour. And at later battles, such as Verneuil, mentioned in

            evidently placing trust in his armor and that of his companions, which for three years they had taken pains to improve ... strove to rush the archers,” the bowmen “pierced entirely through these armored men [armatos omnino penetrarent], drilling through their helmets [cassides terebrarent] ... and piercing through all their armor with ease [et omnem armaturam levi negotio transverberarent]. The earl of Douglas was pierced [confossus est] with v [5] wounds, notwithstanding his extremely costly [sumptuosissima] armor.” Brown, M.H. (2004). "Douglas, Archibald, fourth earl of Douglas". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

            "An English arrow with a little wax on the point of the head will pass through an ordinary corseletted or cuirass" Potritius (1544)

            , or Patay, you saw archers get routed by charges of heavy cavalry.
            But the penetrative power of arrows is ultimately not what makes them a useful weapon. If archers can kill or wound the horses, if they can harm less heavily armoured infantry formations, then they're already doing their job well enough. This idea that they'd have to beat heavy cavalry and armoured knights probably stems from some bourgeois, republican sentiment that somehow sees the archer as the little man making a stand against the aristocracy. But in terms of tactical use, longbows were probably a lot more deadly and a lot more useful against other little men, who couldn't afford the top of the line equipment, which is why the golden age of the longbow was at the time of the English campaigns against Scotland.

            >https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/arrows-v-armour-2/documents/stories/plate-armour-material-test/
            It says in test two they used 0.2 carbon mild steel cuirass but he doesn't mention the specific rolled sheets they used to make it. I guess thats still acceptably on the medium range if it wasn't hardened.

            >if it wasn't hardened
            I believe they specifically mention it wasn't. I suspect what matters more is the shape than the quality of the material. The slope alone will make the difference for most frontal hits.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dont forget the french mercs were ordered to leave their pavise behind and got shot to shit. Longbows really werent THAT great. Sucks at siege warfare too, you have to stand up and expose yourself to shoot as opposed to xbows. Too much dick suckery about them tbh. There was an archery tradition amongst the lower classes so the bongs used what they had. They got rekt in many other battles in 100yw

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fascinating

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Modern experiments with period equipment show that plate armour is reliably capable of protecting against arrows

            If you mean Todd Howards video it's on the very upper range of equipment for both the bow and the cuirass and the cuirass itself could have not been replicated in the hundred years war period. Lindybeige's one is probably the same.

            Regardless that guy wanted a primary source and the original poster didnt provide any source because likely he was making shit up so i did.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Todd Howards video
            They did two experiments though. The first one was, as far as I know, anachronistic in terms of material. But the second one used wrought iron if I remember correctly, being a far better representation of historical armour from the period. Still, whatever the historical reality, I believe the fact that people bothered themselves with making and wearing plate armour well into the 20th century shows that it mostly did its job. While it could be circumvented or at times even penetrated, people would have probably abandoned it in its early days rather than doubling down and going further down that road if it didn't work or show potential.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you remember which part they mention the wrought iron he used? Does he mention the AISI?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >https://todtodeschini.com/youtube-projects/arrows-v-armour-2/documents/stories/plate-armour-material-test/
            It says in test two they used 0.2 carbon mild steel cuirass but he doesn't mention the specific rolled sheets they used to make it. I guess thats still acceptably on the medium range if it wasn't hardened.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I bet you also believe crossbows can shoot through walls because a primary source said so.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In fairness medieval walls weren't that sturdy unless it was a castle or some other robust building. An average wattle and daub wall isn't that tough.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pointy arrows

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just for some physics, a longbow arrow has around 100 Joules of energy, while a .22 lr round (which pierces medieval armor) has about 180 Joules.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How common were those armors in the battlefield anyway? Weren't heavy-armored knights some kind of aristocratic elite, mostly composed of cavalrymen? Probably light infantry and mercenaries didn't wore that stuff.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How common were those armors in the battlefield anyway?
      Basically the entire French army at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt would've worn full-body armor, though only at Agincourt this would've meant that most soldiers wore plate.
      > aristocratic elite
      Yes, but a country of 20 million can easily throw together 10k aristocrats for a scrap.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >though only at Agincourt this would've meant that most soldiers wore plate.
        wore FULL plate. in the mid 1300s you'd still see a lot of coat-of-plates kind of stuff

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we're talking about france
      knights in full armor was kind of their whole thing
      and they didn't always fight on horses (for example crecy, agincourt), they would not use them if i put them at a disadvantage

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you were fighting there's a very good chance you had at least some armor. Even peasant militia could be expected to show up with helmets and brigandine or old coats of plate.

      essentially, you'd definitely get knocked out if you're getting consistently hit by tens and tens of arrows
      longbows are extremely powerful
      this aint your granny's crossbow

      There Re literally no cases of this occurring, and you can read accounts of people taking blows from far more powerful weapons and surviving. Longbows just aren't hitting hard enough for that. Not enough mass.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As the medieval era was giving way to the renaissance era, armor was becoming more and more common on the European battlefield. While custom-fitted full suits of plate armor tended to remain a feature of knights, simplified, lower quality armor became available to common soldiers.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munition_armour

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, mostly the disrupted the charge, weakened the knights. high quality steel of a good thickness was able to stop longbow arrows but not all armour was equal, some parts of the armour would have been thinner and some armours were made of shittier steel, so some arrow would wound if not kill, then the archers would engage in melee combat with the french who by the time they reached the archers were normally disrupted enough and if mounting a foot attack tired enough that the archers stood a fairly good chance of taking them down with mauls and mattocks and then stabbing them with daggers.

    and archers tended to be armed for melee combat as well and often armoured themselves if not so heavily.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the arrows didn't pierce the armour, but they hit hard as frick

    also, the arrows weren't the reason for the defeats of the french, not by themselves
    for example, in agincourt, it wasn't the arrows that killed the french, it was the crowd crush in which they found themselves, as they struggled to advance under the constant flight of arrows on three sides, unable to look forward (so at to not get an arrow in the visor), and getting stuck in the gooey northern mud, and they crush themselves to asphyxiation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      essentially, you'd definitely get knocked out if you're getting consistently hit by tens and tens of arrows
      longbows are extremely powerful
      this aint your granny's crossbow

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >French knights
    did not wear this kind of armor when they were famously defeated by longbowmen. and even then, it was longbowmen fighting from field fortifications alongside English men at arms in the same kind of plate armor as the French ones.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    120lb bow vs armour.

    %3D

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A longbow could apparently yield 96 ft/lbs of energy at point blank rang which is not insignificant although I'm not sure if thats enough to penetrate armor, possibly light armor

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the quality of the steel and how much of the body is covered by steel. Although France had the ability to make high quality steel, most production would be mild steel and as thin as possible. Don’t neglect the fact most knights were required to provide their own armor and horse. Affordability of supplies was an important aspect of any army. Only a few would have access to armor like your picrel

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is it that hard to just look at the fricking answer anywhere on the internet, what is the point of this thread?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As others have said, your pic is nearly a century out, like showing a pic of a stealth fighter and asking "how did the luftwaffe lose the Battle of Britain with these?". The stuff they wore at the beginning of the hundred year war was more like this, most of which was easily penetrated by arrows. By the end of it (over a century later) some of the richest had fully plated up, causing longbows to be less effective, but a large part of both sides still wore partial and easily penetrated armour.. Also, the french heavily invested in cannons and handgonnes by the end, thoroughly defeating the english with dug in artillery at the battle of Castilon in 1453.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *