The main point of maille was butted, riveted or any other such way, it's not piercing protection but rather cutting protection. Maille is still used by butchers and such to protect against cutting, the move from mostly cutting weapons to piercing weapons was a key factor in maille falling out of favour.
For all those saying using butted mail is an inaccuracy test listen to this. No not ever solider could afford riveted mail, it like saying everybody today can afford a Mercedes. The mail was simple there as a cover of the gambison, even if you got hit and the links tore, the mail did it good, it dispersed and absorbed the blow and because of the design could be repaired after the battle. But yes not using a gambison was an inaccuracy for the next video please use one.
@PaulkyArcher Full suits of butted maille is a completely modern/Asian invention. All maille shirts from medieval era Europe was riveted unless the links were designed to be decorative.
i love how academics claim that aparently everything under the sun will stop a bodkin arrow, and yet it was an integral part of the english war machine for over a century. the numbers don't lie, we can very easilly see examples of longbows leveling the competition historically.
For what you guys tested, you are right. There are many problems with this though. Butted mail really wasn't used, everything was riveted. This makes a huge difference, as it would be much harder to penetrate. Also, men wore padded gambesons under it which ended up catching most arrows that penetrated the mail. Lastly, The vast majority of medieval archers did not have the training or skill or experience to wield bows like the English war bow, only the English every really used bows this strong
By principle chainmail isn't designed to stop thin penetrating hits, it's designed to blunt and disperse glancing or heavy slashes. Still, it's a good test.
you are very accurate i'm not that good even with a modern recurve but then again i don't like modern bows, they feel .. uncomfertable somehow. Great shooting
At this range... no metal fabric of the time will STOP an arrow... thats why arrows were so popular.... there were no real protection from it that was good enough... so butted mail could have been used in battle to wear of glancing or slashing hits from a sword or something like that..
Well,as the Maille was mounted on a solid hay target with no moving or anything it's more chance of actually penetrating the maille,I suggest you to get something soft,that behaves kind of like the human body,then mount the maille on it,to make it even more hardcore,hang the whole thing up so it actually can fly around just like a person would do if he got it by it,also a very nice video,truly shows an incredible power to these bows :)
@SimonTofft Thank you Simon. I completely agree. There are many things wrong with this test and it isn't very scientific. We would like to do a follow-up video with authentic rivetted maille attached to a sack of beans or something similar so that it behaves as you suggest. Glad you enjoyed it though and thank you for the feedback. It is always appreciated.
@Dragging1Canoe No mate, it's hand made. It doesn't take that long to make a small square of butted maille to be honest. The time and expense comes in when making tailored items. The trick is to make up a bunch of closed rings, then make up a section of 4 closed rings around one open ring which is then closed (making a butterfly shape). After you have a pile of these "butterflies" then you can very quickly link them into a square.
So many people get so upset with chainmail vs arrow tests. Ok, standard medieval soldiers mail was built of steel or iron of inferior quality of even the worst modern reproduction so get real, the bodkin was designed to pierce mail and it did so get over it, mail was not designed to resist bodkin shots. Mail did however stop close quarter slashing which was most typical combat style after archers fucked off. Mail did stop the much more lethal broadhead arrows, bodkin pierce mail/padding not deep
@Intranetusa this is true. they could probably get the same effect as rivited chain by soldering the links on their sheet of chain with a mapp gas torch and some lead solder
Ever try penetrating armor with modern compound bows and modern hunting broadhead designs? I think it would be interesting to see what a 80# Hoyt AlphaBurner shooting Easton FMJs with SlickTrick broadheads would do. Betcha' it'd blow right through.
@gvman3670 I would be interested to see the results of a test like that too. My only concern would be that modern carbon arrows may well shatter on impact. I used to shoot carbon arrows off my modern recurve many years ago (sights, stabilisers etc) so I know how fragile those shafts can be :o)
I think under different setups Mail armor can be shown to be totally ineffective or impervious to arrows..The truth was Mail effectiveness was in it's Millennium long use..It was insanely expensive to make I don't think they lugged around all that weight and spent such sums of money for so many years for something that a could easily be defeated..mail Armor Worked well. Not perfect but good enough..
@Crushedknee Yes I completely agree. Maille with padding probably stood up well to early bows and was great against slashing cuts. It certainly did well against arrows during the Crusades, but remember that things move on and during the 15th century maille was worn beneath plate so the bows and arrows had to develop to keep up with plate.
Why don't you just shoot from a distance of 1 meter to prove your point? The power of the arrow is way higher from that range than normal range. Although the arrow probably would even go through the chainmail from that distance, the caused damage would be significant less...
@marom009 Actually I wanted to shoot from 50cm away, but I was worried the arrow might break and come back at me! ;o) While velocity would be greater at 20 yards than say, 80 yards, once you start getting beyond 150 yards gravity begins to add back some of the velocity lost due to drag. It has been proved that at 200+ yards there is no discernable difference to 40 yards. It's all right people like you saying we should position the targets at max range, but you don't have to hit them!
I think you're right. I've misjudged the effect of the vertical component in the total speed at the end. The horizontal speed will be less due to air friction but this will be (partially) made up by the vertical speed.
@bigbowbrum I saw an original butted chainmail at display in Bayeux, next to the tapestry. It was from around the period of William the Conqueror. This indicates that butted mail was used in battles such as the one from Hastings, and that the time did not limit itself to riveted mail
I agree that mail is worthless against high-medieval bows such as the English Longbow. The mail armour simply wasn't able to withstand neither the power of the bow, nor the new tactics of using many bowmen en masse
@Rastlink That's really interesting to hear. I have never been able to track down a true example of butted maille in use. Thank you. I will have to get over to Bayeux at some point and take a look. Best wishes.
Bodkin tip vs butted mail? Well duh, that's going to pierce it. It doesn't prove anything about real mail. Especially real mail vs ordinary arrow heads.
@JuniusFaction Hi there. Please read the description first before posting. It was a specific response to a specific claim. This test has no relevance to authentic medieval maille, however I don't know what you mean by "ordinary" arrow heads. When faced with maille medieval archers would have used an appropriate head to defeat it, i.e. needle bodkins.
guys, u used bodkin arrows at 15 yards vs a butted mail.
It's the same of placing a shaped charge on a Leopard II without reactive armor to prove that it's not that difficult to penetrate.
Btw, chainmail IS stronger against arrows for the simple reason that ring can better spread the penetration force delivered by the arrows than a simple iron plate. That's the same concept of plated armor: thinner overlapped plates are more resistant than a single thicker plate.
@gibbo1112 With butted maille the two ends of each piece of wire used to make a ring are simply pushed together but they don't touch, where as with rivetted maille the ends of the ring are flattened, overlapped and a very small rivetted is punched through them to weld them together. Butted maille rings can be forced apart quite easily by an arrow. Rivetted rings need to be broken so they are stronger. This is why butted maille was rarely, if ever, used in real battle.
You should have also used 4 in 1 and not 6 in 1. 6 in 1 would have been heavy and there is no historical evidence of it's common use in the medieval period. 4 in 1 butted with 1/4 inch center 16 ga may fair better, but we must realize this is what bodkin arrows were designed to do and most likely could penetrate light plate directly.
*Whistles* Man, you British folk have the longbow nailed down to a science. I really would like to live in Britian, if it weren't for the wonky firearm laws. Nothing against you folks personally, I just like to shoot a lot. Typical American, I guess. :) Love the videos!
Continued: perhaps not as powerful as the Longbow, but certainly close to it. Also, I don't expect plate would supplant mail in all of Europe only because of a weapon that took years to train with and that was used in a limited area. Plate gives better protection, but it's also cheaper to make given the equipment. Perhaps the longbow did pierce mail regularly, but one weapon doesn't mean the armor is outdated everywhere. The economic perspective on this makes more sense to me.
May I suggest an alternative reason as to why plate supplanted mail? I keep seeing the point that only breastplates will stop arrows. Forgotten is the fact that innovations in the late 1300s in regard to forging metal meant that plate armor could be created more cheaply than mail, which required hundreds of hours of labor to make. Also, the Ottomans, Mughals, and Eastern Europe kept on using mail even after plate took over in the West. These civilizations also had high-powered bows
@harukiigarashi I'm not aware of it being called that. I believed it was a modern design of shooting glove but I am always happy to hear if a similar design has been used throughout the ages.
@znerolz No. As stated in the description this is butted maille which would not have been used in medieval battle. They would have used rivetted maille.
@bigbowbrum Only one question ,how much was the distance from where you fired that bow , 5meters , 12 max........ that´s lame ,try to fire it from the REAL distance , that means less power + the angle results probably with the deflection ...maybe a small penetration , but the crossbow .....aaaaa that´s another story ..........
@magnvsmarcvs The distance was around 10 - 15 yards if I remember correctly. We could have put the target at 200 yards to simulate a real battle, but we would probably still be there now trying to hit it! ;o)
What about Muslim chronists who were astounded about crusaders looking like hedgehogs but fighting on like nothing happened? Anecdotal for sure, but not more so than such tests usually carried out under perfect conditions for the archers.
I'm certain bows weren't useless and could pierce armor but one should look at modern infantry armor which can also be pierced by modern bullets but the main point of it is: It saves lives because only few bullets hit under perfect conditions!
@kMondrakken Yes I too have read this about the Crusaders, and while our test is not meant to be authentic, I should stress that my position is that maille was not effective on its own (with padding of course) against the 14th and 15th century English/Welsh "warbows". I would suggest that the bows used during the crusades were a much different weapon with nowhere near the same penetrative power, which is only fair as it was an earlier period as well as different geographic area.
Seems a bit selective to me. In contrast to even England archery was widespread among Turks, Arabs and Byzantines, including advanced bow designs with high drawstrengths.
However in the 14th and 15th century maille wasn't the primary type of body armor anymore but a part of any type of hybrid armor leading up to full plate so it's comparing a by then outdated armor type vs. an evolved bow type (assuming increasing draw strengths in war bows due to professionalization).
@kMondrakken Yes it is selective on purpose. My interest lies soley with the military warbows of the period covered by the Hundred Years War and of the battles pitting English/Welsh archers against French/Scots/Burgundian/Genoese soldiers. Maille was indeed outdated as a primary type of body armour by then, and this video goes to show why, even though I appreciate it is not an authentic test.
"in battle conditions it is far easier to stick arrows in the ground than keep them in your belt."
This is the most likely explanation for the practice. Even educated doctors in the early 1900's routinely delivered babies with their bare hands (without even washing), and often right after performing autopsies and anatomical dissections on corpses. Up to 30% of women often died because of resulting sepsis. So people back in the middle ages couldn't have known that dirt would cause infections.
Yeah, chainmail's design is definitely meant to block slashes or hits from melee weapons, it's full of holes anyways so arrows would easily peirce. Even though that is a different kind of chainmail that uses loops, instead of it swirling around like a fence. The solid metal armor, like breastplates and helmets are made to block arrows. Cool test, although you were using a differnt type of chainmail, that was lacking in quality.
@ToaRanen7 Totally agree. Maille seems to have been used under plate towards the 15th century when bows became more powerful. Thanks for enjoying the video, though it really wasn't meant to be a proper test otherwise we would have used padding and rivetted maille.
That doesn't prove that mail in conjunction with the full gear wasn't effective against arrows. They wore a thick purpoint beneath it. Plus, an arrow almost never hit head on against a stationary target. The fact that you had trouble hitting the mail in the first place in part makes the point of 1) it was hard to hit a moving knight, 2) the arrow would virtually never hit dead on, but at an angle, which would likely veer off of the mail.
@RealCrusadeHistory It was not meant to prove nor disprove the efficacy of maille worn with padding. I thought the description made that obvious. It is ridiculous to say arrows almost never hit head on. Were you there at every battle? The difficulty of hitting a small square of maille is irrelevant. The target was more often than not massed ranks of soldiers. People did get hit with arrows. Arrows don't "veer" off maille like they do plate. If anything maille catches them.
Of course it's not ridiculous. It's perfectly logical. How often is an arrow going to hit a moving target in a precisely straight line? Virtually never. It's going to hit it from all sorts of degrees of "sideways". Stretching a little square of chainmail over a flat surface then standing in front of it and firing an arrow into it proves nothing about how an arrow would hit a warrior garbed in mail in a battle.
@RealCrusadeHistory I don't know why I bother to include a description with my videos as it is clear no one reads them. This is not an authentic test. It was a specific reply to re-enactor friends of mine who made specific claims about butted maille worn over simple clothing. However, I stand by my comments regarding head on hits. During the Hundred Years War men-at-arms fought dismounted. It's unlikely they could run or weave. Many hits would still have hit head on, that's logical too.
@RealCrusadeHistory I am sure Bigbowbrum welcomes all points of views and indeed this is a discussion for the functionality of a yew bow armed with bodkin arrows against chainmail.
Althought it could help if you study the pasics of medieval warfare to give more educated and interesting counter arguments.
Imagine the ancient European "Barbarians" armed with wonder weapons like this during their wars with the Romans. The Roman Legions would have been cut to pieces.
From tests ive seen done when the chain mail is hit, the bodkin can force the links apart at such speed they fragment the mail links.The arrow then throws these bits of fragmented iron and steel into the wound the arrow causes, so getting the arrow out means nothing when you've got bits of rusty link floating around you body. can any one say tetanus ??
@TheMetalHeaded Very Interesting. Remember that medieval rivetted maille was backed by padded jacks or equivallent. I imagine the padding would stop most fragments but I guess it is possible. Any arrow that penetrated flesh would also take with it dirt & scraps of clothing which definitely caused infection. I remember reading the French believed the English were using poisoned arrows because of this kind of infection. Musket balls produced similar effects in the 17th Century English Civil War.
@bigbowbrum I do not know personally any documented cases of english using poisoned arrows but this is only half of the truth.
It was common to cover the arrows with human extrament or if this was not handy just stick them in ground contaminating the arrows and increasing the change of infections, even if the arrow was removed succefully.
Biological warfare was common in medieval era and disease was used as weapon especially in siege operations.
@equalizert Yes I'm sure they used every trick in the book if they could, noting how human or animal remains were shot into besieged towns using trebuchets to spread disease. My experience as an archer has taught me that in battle conditions it is far easier to stick arrows in the ground than keep them in your belt. Whether they consciously thought about the effects the dirt would have on the target's wounds is something I don't think we shall ever know for sure. Very interesting though.
I doubt that. People in the middle ages understood that corpses of diseased people could spread disease, so they would sometimes catapult dead plague victims over enemy walls. But even surgeons didn't understand the causes of bacterial infections (or how good hygiene prevented them) until germ theory was discovered in the early 20th century, so how could the medievals possibly know that dirt or excrement in wounds could cause sickness?
@logik316 Good comment Logik, and I don't disagree with your reasoning. However, we should remember that just because they didn't understand germ theory doesn't mean they couldn't, through experience, associate dirt with disease. They may not have understood why or how a dirty wound became sceptic, but they could still observe the connection. Barber surgeons on the battlefield knew enough to clean wounds with wine or vinegar and even use Myrrh as an antisceptic.
It's plausible that people long ago may have figured out purely through trial & error that washing a wound, or treating it with certain herbs resulted in better healing. But if that's the case, then that knowledge didn't make it to 19th century Europe. In 1847 there was a Hungarian physician by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, who was deemed to be insane by all the other doctors simply for insisting that they should wash their hands before going into surgery. Not kidding, google him.
@logik316 Yes, amazing how such basics were not observed in 1847. In 1403 Henry V (then prince) was hit in the face by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury. John Bradmore, a London surgeon, successfully extracted the arrowhead in a procedure which he later wrote up in full. It includes "I cleansed the wound with a syringe full of white wine" and "within twenty days the wound was perfectly well cleansed." He also treated the wound with honey, another known antisceptic.
@bigbowbrum It's incredible, but you've got to consider that people didn't have even the slightest idea of the existence of bacteriae. It was unimaginable at the time. Sickness was caused by breath, or Divine wrath. You can see the amazing progress medecine has made in just over a century
I think most people with knowledge of medieval warfare know chainmail was designed to protect against glansing/cutting blows made my swords and similar weapons with cutting edge.
Going against late era longbow in another hand was bloody murder hence tactics were different tackling english/welsh archers.
Good point to remember is not all armies has such good longbowmen and against weaker bows chaimail was quite efficient at least minimising the penetration
nice video but im sorry that mail isnt even close to butted chain mail the gauge of the rings is probably 16 gauge isnt it? that was to thin they used to go up to 14 gauge and the rings must be flattend out thats real chain mail and her strength goes in how you place the rings and in which direction they are facing. Im just saying cos i am a armourer and i produce lots of chain mail and i even tested riveted and butted chainmail and the only arrows that will penetrate chain mail is bodkin arrows
I have a question about these square plates which you fire. With what or how they are made? Because I do not quite know what is needed to make such a shield. Sorry for any spelling mistakes, but not too fluent in English.
@TheCzlowiEklasu Hi. If you are referring to the large target on which the maille is pinned then that is made out of compressed straw. You should be able to buy one from most archery stores. Best wishes.
@bigbowbrum to be honest would a good longbow/warbow could go true a good platearmor in the front? (not from 15 yards)??? and in that role waht weapon would be best 4 go true plate a good crossbow or a bow?
@SweStuff94 Crossbows with mechanical aids and high draw weights could penetrate armour easier than a bow, but not all armour was the same so it is impossible to say yes or no. Contemporary battle reports from medieval chroniclers record arrows bouncing off plate armour just as frequently as arrows penetrating. Clearly bows were effective otherwise they would not have been used in such high numbers, but we don't know how often they could penetrate armour, or which kinds they could not penetrate.
@bigbowbrum The archers could be used even for strategicall reasons...A cloud of deadly iron arrows could make a few kills and make the troops really stressed...
Which is indeed - critical range for the bow, and there is no gambeson underneath it. Butted mail is poor against piercing - i got enough of it to know, but you kind of stacked the odds a bit here.
yeah but what you've done is put a piece of chain mail flat against a target that has no give in it and no padding between it and the mail and shot it at right angles with a long bow (which were amazing weapons) from what i doubt was a very long distance. this isn't an accurate test of the protection that chain mail provided.
chain mail was worn for just about 2000 years. you'd think that if it wasnt working they would have changed to something els.
@renegade94pro The test was in reply to specific comments made by a specific group of people, as my description explains. It was never meant to be an historically correct battlefield test. For the vast majority of those "2,000 years" maille did not come up against the 14th/15th century warbow. As soon as it did we see it worn with plate, not on its own.
@renegade94pro the japanese Samurai used kind of a parachute that the wind blew a silk sheet behind their backs, and amazingly it worked very well against arrows.....search or google for it. I think I saw it on Discovery Channel or Military Channel. Anyone know the name of what I'm talking about?
@JackieFan123 Yes, the Mongols had a form of that too.
One thing about these comments: Don't forget RANGE. The range at which these targets are being hit is critical! Penetrating all sorts of armor at 15 yards is nice, but you have ONE SHOT to hit a charging opponent at that range before his sword splits your skull! Especially if he is on a horse!
@tardfuck89 The heads are all hand-forged by Hector Cole. We mainly used type 9 or type 10 bodkins as well as the heavy war or "plate cutter" bodkin. Hector has a great site online with photos of all the different types.
@bigbowbrum Not a bad point about hitting from a distance, but if you hit somebody's side you would indeed be hitting the maille at an angle. Oh, and yes. I know butted maille was never used in battle.
I think it's funny that this test was done with the assumption that the arrows would be hitting head on. Try doing this from an angle. And I'm not sure what distance this was done from, but was it at least realistic?
@Andernerd You are quite right. No army in the history of medieval warfare ever approached their enemy from the front, or if they had no choice then at the very least they would all walk sideways to prevent the arrows from hitting them head on. ;o) Seriously though, this was never intended to be realistic as butted maille was never used in battle, as all my comments go to explain. If we had put the target at 200 yards we would still be there now trying to hit that small patch of maille! ha ha.
@Andernerd your right , and i find the reply you got unsatifactory, what iriatates me is the "i wouldent want to war chain in battle comment"......they wore it for hundreds of years, it must have worked
@FellBlade9 I don't agree that my reply was unsatisfactory at all. Andernerd suggests maille never received frontal hits. To do so is preposterous. Maille was designed to limit damage from slashing cuts. Yes, it was effective against arrows during the crusades but this site is interested soley in the golden years of the warbow. i.e. the 14th & 15th centuries. By then maille, if used at all, was worn UNDER plate and padding. It would not protect against these bows on its own.
I did the same test (I was so confident I was going to hold it over my chest!!, but was persuaded round) A home made bow about 12lb and field points. still destroyed butted maile.
I never understood why chainmail or heavy armour was worn, the cons seem to to far outnumber the pros. its heavy, restrictive, helmet obscures vision, loss of mobility and speed when dodging deflecting attacking and counter attacking, extra weight means u fatigue sooner so can't fight anymore and as every test on youtube shows that a good swing or thrust of typical weapons used pierces through with ease. A good shield and lighter leather armour to stop slashes had to be the better choice?
a full armour suit's worth, in today's standards, would be about the same price of a house, or even more... the thing is, it was difficult to make, ridiculously expensive, etc... don't you think they would've not used it if it didn't work? It did work, and extremely well, plus, the movies of thousands of warriors with mail and plate? that's not very accurate... most soldiers had leather and cloth, few had the privilege of mail and plate.
What gauge of wire was that? it looks about 14 gauge. Try doing that to 12 or 10 gauge. I think I will try it with bigger wire, if i can dig out some rings from when I used to make chainmail.
@caiusbritannicus1 I can't remember but you are probably right. Of course butted maille is not authentic, so the test is only for fun anyway, but I have been told the gauge would be OK if it were rivetted. Good luck with your own tests.
a sword would even go through that. chainmail was meant to have give behind in like humain skin not a solid backing. try in on a softer background then see how it holds up.
Im pretty sure chainmail was an undercoat used against slashing weapons. Works Perfectly as such. However plated armor was worn as outer armor and arrows would be almost obsolete against it.
@Takiado Thats not totally true, during the 100 years war, only Knights could afford wear both chainmail and plate armor, standard infetry would wear one of the two, depending on their specification. At 20 yards a Long bow can effectivly penetrate the armor
@TheJohnnycage19 Thanks for your interest but I'm not a commercial bowyer, although I have played around and made a couple of bows for my own use. I wish I were good enough to sell them though.
@bigbowbrum You see, I've been trying to simulate real life archery in this game called Mount&Blade Warband. And its very hard to come by a test that does the subject justice. I'm sure you are familiar with primary sources saying that crusader sergeants would take arrows like pin-cussions, but I'm sure that was an over-hype. In your mind, against riveted mail with a thick gambeson underneath, what would be the killing range (5/6 shots would kill) of a 150 lb warbow?
@GamerDudester Difficult to know for sure as I have yet to do any real tests with rivetted maille. I am pretty sure that an arrow from that kind of bow will get through maille and a Gambeson far enough to kill with one shot, but the range is the important factor. I would hazard a guess and say 100 yards would be possible, but until I can do my own tests I am just plucking figures out of thin air. I am still waiting for an armourer to supply me with some good quality maille.
@GamerDudester remember, that crusader were fighting against saracens, what means - arabic bows, which are made for speed and lightness so they are perfect to shoot from a horseback, because of that they can not be compared to english bow in terms of strength and piercing power. So there you have it why historical sources tell us about crusader sergeants that were immune to arrows
@GamerDudester We need to remember the range. Archers would be firing over long distances for many of their shots and so the arrows would have less energy to penetrate. There are many accounts of knights fighting the saracen coming out of battle looking like hedgehogs and I would say they were hit by arrows over some distance. An arrow can penetrate mail if it is fired close enough and doesn't glance off.
@GamerDudester it would be interesting. but i dont think the results will be in favor of the maile. i only have a 65 pounder with needle bodkins. and my bow penetrates right through at 60-70 yards. even 4 layers of the stuff. personally i think the effectiveness of the bodkin was the big reason why plate armor was created. i had a debate with a knight at a ren faire, he thought his maile would stop my bodkins. i took one and judged penetration before it would break rings. at least 2 inches..
Butted maille was used only very rarely. No it wouldnt stop an arrow but like riveted mail it did provide protection against slashing blows although riveted was far superior and more reliable.
@sengfar964 Thank you! Makes a nice change from people telling me I couldn't hit a barn door! ha ha. Most people fail to appreciate how difficult it is to shoot accurately with one of these heavy draw weight bows. Thanks again for your support. Best wishes.
@bigbowbrum you mean you prefer that other than others saying you have bad aim? who wouldnt! the ppl that say things about other ppls bad aim are noobs.
Cool video. I love British history, as a member of the commonwealth, it strikes close to home. I was thinking of taking up archery and I wanted to get a Longbow like what the English archers used back in the days of the Hundred Years War, not one of those gangsta Compound Bows you see red necks using. Any idea where I can buy an English style Longbow?
@bigbowbrum Thanks for the links, I will certainly look into the different bows and equipment. I truly appreciate it. Keep up the good work on these interesting videos.
@MajBlood ...although some of us may be rednecks, ill give you that. but there are some cases where we that is a primary source of food so we very well need the best we can get....i shoot all three types; compound recurve and a longbow...i take my 1st deer with my compound and then switch to the long bow for the rest of the season...
@Enrods pretty good points but as you should know most archers fought fairly close, acompanyed by a pike man for protection they, often shot straight, often at incoming knights(horse less) where only a broad head could penatrate and only at 20 meters i think. but yea i doubt a bow will go through mail easily due to the flexability of the chain armor. thx for listening
Even if your mail and leather took a lot of the oomf out, if that barb gets in you're buggered. Maybe not deadly buggered, but you certainly wouldn't be happy about it.
The joyous thought of either pushing the arrow through you (lets hope there's no organs near by!) or ripping it out along with a great clod of flesh must be quite demoralising.
I think that chainmail armor could be penetrated by shortbow (and there is some evidence of it during Crusades), but probably only when fired directly.
The main point of maille was butted, riveted or any other such way, it's not piercing protection but rather cutting protection. Maille is still used by butchers and such to protect against cutting, the move from mostly cutting weapons to piercing weapons was a key factor in maille falling out of favour.
TheAntiQuest 1 month ago
people who wore mail would wear it in multiple layers and that would stop an arrow (leaves a big bruise)
xtreme0ride 1 month ago
i used to do this...........then i took an arrow to the knee
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 month ago
Nice vid! I see you guys now have a tripod for the camera as well... :-)
Batavijf 1 month ago
Chainmail is for slash protection not for arrows.
hdjghasgaj 3 months ago
For all those saying using butted mail is an inaccuracy test listen to this. No not ever solider could afford riveted mail, it like saying everybody today can afford a Mercedes. The mail was simple there as a cover of the gambison, even if you got hit and the links tore, the mail did it good, it dispersed and absorbed the blow and because of the design could be repaired after the battle. But yes not using a gambison was an inaccuracy for the next video please use one.
Geat video.
PaulkyArcher 3 months ago
@PaulkyArcher Full suits of butted maille is a completely modern/Asian invention. All maille shirts from medieval era Europe was riveted unless the links were designed to be decorative.
NotJustYouNoob 2 months ago
And that was 6 in 1 mail. Most Medieval armour was 4 in 1.
Personally I've shot a bodkin, from a 50lb bow, through British Army combat body armour. Will mail stop a bodkin? Not a chance.
voiceoftruth2006 4 months ago in playlist The Best Real Archery
i love how academics claim that aparently everything under the sun will stop a bodkin arrow, and yet it was an integral part of the english war machine for over a century. the numbers don't lie, we can very easilly see examples of longbows leveling the competition historically.
Treifla 4 months ago
That would be a bad day on the battlefield haha. great video!
Judoka186 4 months ago
For what you guys tested, you are right. There are many problems with this though. Butted mail really wasn't used, everything was riveted. This makes a huge difference, as it would be much harder to penetrate. Also, men wore padded gambesons under it which ended up catching most arrows that penetrated the mail. Lastly, The vast majority of medieval archers did not have the training or skill or experience to wield bows like the English war bow, only the English every really used bows this strong
Squira13 4 months ago
By principle chainmail isn't designed to stop thin penetrating hits, it's designed to blunt and disperse glancing or heavy slashes. Still, it's a good test.
0hypnotoad0 4 months ago
Ninjas could just knock the arrow down before it hit them. That's why ninjas didn't wear any protection.
tannalv 4 months ago
Interesting test :)
Zowi121 5 months ago
you are very accurate i'm not that good even with a modern recurve but then again i don't like modern bows, they feel .. uncomfertable somehow. Great shooting
aDAMPis1913 5 months ago
@aDAMPis1913 Thank you!
bigbowbrum 4 months ago
hey nick, what's the name of the song in the beginning? It's such a nice medieval sounding melody?
grtz tom
tommekelongbow 5 months ago
is this aluminium chain mail???
KhornesChampion2 5 months ago
@KhornesChampion2 No it's not aluminium but I can't be sure whether it is iron or steel either. Sorry.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
At this range... no metal fabric of the time will STOP an arrow... thats why arrows were so popular.... there were no real protection from it that was good enough... so butted mail could have been used in battle to wear of glancing or slashing hits from a sword or something like that..
jizburg 5 months ago
Well,as the Maille was mounted on a solid hay target with no moving or anything it's more chance of actually penetrating the maille,I suggest you to get something soft,that behaves kind of like the human body,then mount the maille on it,to make it even more hardcore,hang the whole thing up so it actually can fly around just like a person would do if he got it by it,also a very nice video,truly shows an incredible power to these bows :)
SimonTofft 5 months ago
@SimonTofft Thank you Simon. I completely agree. There are many things wrong with this test and it isn't very scientific. We would like to do a follow-up video with authentic rivetted maille attached to a sack of beans or something similar so that it behaves as you suggest. Glad you enjoyed it though and thank you for the feedback. It is always appreciated.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
What was the distance at which you fired the arrows?
Nightrider1367 6 months ago
@Nightrider1367 It wasn't much. Around 15 - 20 yards if I remember correctly.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
how much did that little section of mail cost you?
Dragging1Canoe 6 months ago
@Dragging1Canoe We were fortunate to have the maille donated to us for free by YouTube user Tbird761, but I imagine it would cost less than £10.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum Iis that type manufactured then? Because one would think that if it were hand made it would cost a lot more than that.
Dragging1Canoe 6 months ago
@Dragging1Canoe No mate, it's hand made. It doesn't take that long to make a small square of butted maille to be honest. The time and expense comes in when making tailored items. The trick is to make up a bunch of closed rings, then make up a section of 4 closed rings around one open ring which is then closed (making a butterfly shape). After you have a pile of these "butterflies" then you can very quickly link them into a square.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum Oh ok. Thanks for the info.
Dragging1Canoe 6 months ago
So many people get so upset with chainmail vs arrow tests. Ok, standard medieval soldiers mail was built of steel or iron of inferior quality of even the worst modern reproduction so get real, the bodkin was designed to pierce mail and it did so get over it, mail was not designed to resist bodkin shots. Mail did however stop close quarter slashing which was most typical combat style after archers fucked off. Mail did stop the much more lethal broadhead arrows, bodkin pierce mail/padding not deep
PangeaSpreads 6 months ago
Butted mail is used by modern reenactors. It is extremely weak since the joints easily come apart.
Actual mail historically used for armor would've been riveted or welded.
Intranetusa 7 months ago
@Intranetusa As explained in the description to this video.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum
Ah I see, my bad.
Intranetusa 6 months ago
@Intranetusa this is true. they could probably get the same effect as rivited chain by soldering the links on their sheet of chain with a mapp gas torch and some lead solder
mashersmasher 6 months ago
would a tared woodenarmor also be penetrated?
Numira 7 months ago
Ever try penetrating armor with modern compound bows and modern hunting broadhead designs? I think it would be interesting to see what a 80# Hoyt AlphaBurner shooting Easton FMJs with SlickTrick broadheads would do. Betcha' it'd blow right through.
gvman3670 7 months ago
@gvman3670 I would be interested to see the results of a test like that too. My only concern would be that modern carbon arrows may well shatter on impact. I used to shoot carbon arrows off my modern recurve many years ago (sights, stabilisers etc) so I know how fragile those shafts can be :o)
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
I think under different setups Mail armor can be shown to be totally ineffective or impervious to arrows..The truth was Mail effectiveness was in it's Millennium long use..It was insanely expensive to make I don't think they lugged around all that weight and spent such sums of money for so many years for something that a could easily be defeated..mail Armor Worked well. Not perfect but good enough..
Crushedknee 7 months ago
@Crushedknee Yes I completely agree. Maille with padding probably stood up well to early bows and was great against slashing cuts. It certainly did well against arrows during the Crusades, but remember that things move on and during the 15th century maille was worn beneath plate so the bows and arrows had to develop to keep up with plate.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
Why don't you just shoot from a distance of 1 meter to prove your point? The power of the arrow is way higher from that range than normal range. Although the arrow probably would even go through the chainmail from that distance, the caused damage would be significant less...
marom009 7 months ago
@marom009 Actually I wanted to shoot from 50cm away, but I was worried the arrow might break and come back at me! ;o) While velocity would be greater at 20 yards than say, 80 yards, once you start getting beyond 150 yards gravity begins to add back some of the velocity lost due to drag. It has been proved that at 200+ yards there is no discernable difference to 40 yards. It's all right people like you saying we should position the targets at max range, but you don't have to hit them!
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
I think you're right. I've misjudged the effect of the vertical component in the total speed at the end. The horizontal speed will be less due to air friction but this will be (partially) made up by the vertical speed.
marom009 7 months ago
im not sure that many would even use butted mail in battle simply because its not worth the time to make butted is only good for reinactments(sp)
hidan227 8 months ago
@hidan227 Exactly. All the maille I have ever seen was rivetted, hence the reason for this video (see description for explanation).
bigbowbrum 8 months ago
@bigbowbrum you should tell that to the deadliest warrior people lol
hidan227 8 months ago
@hidan227 actually from what i can tell they used the real stuff on one episode and the fake on others
lockbreak12 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum I saw an original butted chainmail at display in Bayeux, next to the tapestry. It was from around the period of William the Conqueror. This indicates that butted mail was used in battles such as the one from Hastings, and that the time did not limit itself to riveted mail
I agree that mail is worthless against high-medieval bows such as the English Longbow. The mail armour simply wasn't able to withstand neither the power of the bow, nor the new tactics of using many bowmen en masse
Rastlink 7 months ago
@Rastlink That's really interesting to hear. I have never been able to track down a true example of butted maille in use. Thank you. I will have to get over to Bayeux at some point and take a look. Best wishes.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
its already dead why do you keep shooting it
1000000volts 8 months ago
Bodkin tip vs butted mail? Well duh, that's going to pierce it. It doesn't prove anything about real mail. Especially real mail vs ordinary arrow heads.
JuniusFaction 8 months ago
@JuniusFaction Hi there. Please read the description first before posting. It was a specific response to a specific claim. This test has no relevance to authentic medieval maille, however I don't know what you mean by "ordinary" arrow heads. When faced with maille medieval archers would have used an appropriate head to defeat it, i.e. needle bodkins.
bigbowbrum 8 months ago
guys, u used bodkin arrows at 15 yards vs a butted mail.
It's the same of placing a shaped charge on a Leopard II without reactive armor to prove that it's not that difficult to penetrate.
Btw, chainmail IS stronger against arrows for the simple reason that ring can better spread the penetration force delivered by the arrows than a simple iron plate. That's the same concept of plated armor: thinner overlapped plates are more resistant than a single thicker plate.
Khurtes 8 months ago
whats the difference between butted and riveted maille?
gibbo1112 8 months ago
@gibbo1112 With butted maille the two ends of each piece of wire used to make a ring are simply pushed together but they don't touch, where as with rivetted maille the ends of the ring are flattened, overlapped and a very small rivetted is punched through them to weld them together. Butted maille rings can be forced apart quite easily by an arrow. Rivetted rings need to be broken so they are stronger. This is why butted maille was rarely, if ever, used in real battle.
bigbowbrum 8 months ago
@bigbowbrum ok cheers
gibbo1112 8 months ago
Saladin said that his archers' arrows couldn't penetrate the mail... They could, they just got stuck in the gambesons :P
ZomBLord 8 months ago
Also, we must remember this was already proven at the battle of Agincourt when the largely English force of longbows slaughtered French men at arms.
StringedStrumpet 8 months ago
You should have also used 4 in 1 and not 6 in 1. 6 in 1 would have been heavy and there is no historical evidence of it's common use in the medieval period. 4 in 1 butted with 1/4 inch center 16 ga may fair better, but we must realize this is what bodkin arrows were designed to do and most likely could penetrate light plate directly.
StringedStrumpet 8 months ago
*Whistles* Man, you British folk have the longbow nailed down to a science. I really would like to live in Britian, if it weren't for the wonky firearm laws. Nothing against you folks personally, I just like to shoot a lot. Typical American, I guess. :) Love the videos!
Patchyman253 8 months ago
Continued: perhaps not as powerful as the Longbow, but certainly close to it. Also, I don't expect plate would supplant mail in all of Europe only because of a weapon that took years to train with and that was used in a limited area. Plate gives better protection, but it's also cheaper to make given the equipment. Perhaps the longbow did pierce mail regularly, but one weapon doesn't mean the armor is outdated everywhere. The economic perspective on this makes more sense to me.
JHanson712 8 months ago
May I suggest an alternative reason as to why plate supplanted mail? I keep seeing the point that only breastplates will stop arrows. Forgotten is the fact that innovations in the late 1300s in regard to forging metal meant that plate armor could be created more cheaply than mail, which required hundreds of hours of labor to make. Also, the Ottomans, Mughals, and Eastern Europe kept on using mail even after plate took over in the West. These civilizations also had high-powered bows
JHanson712 8 months ago
just curious, but is that the Damascus glove you're wearing?
harukiigarashi 9 months ago
@harukiigarashi I'm not aware of it being called that. I believed it was a modern design of shooting glove but I am always happy to hear if a similar design has been used throughout the ages.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
that's way knight, or rich ones ore also a boiled leather armour on the mail.
usual layer is boiled leather on mail on gambeson. that worked but only rich could afford that.
arvas1 9 months ago
is that a chainmaile made for battle? made by an expert, not some greenhorn.
znerolz 9 months ago
@znerolz No. As stated in the description this is butted maille which would not have been used in medieval battle. They would have used rivetted maille.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum Only one question ,how much was the distance from where you fired that bow , 5meters , 12 max........ that´s lame ,try to fire it from the REAL distance , that means less power + the angle results probably with the deflection ...maybe a small penetration , but the crossbow .....aaaaa that´s another story ..........
magnvsmarcvs 9 months ago
@magnvsmarcvs The distance was around 10 - 15 yards if I remember correctly. We could have put the target at 200 yards to simulate a real battle, but we would probably still be there now trying to hit it! ;o)
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum Well....thanks for honesty !!
magnvsmarcvs 9 months ago
can you please make a video of riveted mail against arrows?
jacobbobcorn 9 months ago
@jacobbobcorn Yes I intend to. I'm just waiting on the armourer to supply the rivetted maille.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
What about Muslim chronists who were astounded about crusaders looking like hedgehogs but fighting on like nothing happened? Anecdotal for sure, but not more so than such tests usually carried out under perfect conditions for the archers.
I'm certain bows weren't useless and could pierce armor but one should look at modern infantry armor which can also be pierced by modern bullets but the main point of it is: It saves lives because only few bullets hit under perfect conditions!
Same for maille.
kMondrakken 9 months ago
@kMondrakken Yes I too have read this about the Crusaders, and while our test is not meant to be authentic, I should stress that my position is that maille was not effective on its own (with padding of course) against the 14th and 15th century English/Welsh "warbows". I would suggest that the bows used during the crusades were a much different weapon with nowhere near the same penetrative power, which is only fair as it was an earlier period as well as different geographic area.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum
Seems a bit selective to me. In contrast to even England archery was widespread among Turks, Arabs and Byzantines, including advanced bow designs with high drawstrengths.
However in the 14th and 15th century maille wasn't the primary type of body armor anymore but a part of any type of hybrid armor leading up to full plate so it's comparing a by then outdated armor type vs. an evolved bow type (assuming increasing draw strengths in war bows due to professionalization).
kMondrakken 9 months ago
@kMondrakken Yes it is selective on purpose. My interest lies soley with the military warbows of the period covered by the Hundred Years War and of the battles pitting English/Welsh archers against French/Scots/Burgundian/Genoese soldiers. Maille was indeed outdated as a primary type of body armour by then, and this video goes to show why, even though I appreciate it is not an authentic test.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum
You don't want to get beaten up when solely wearing maille either
kMondrakken 9 months ago
"in battle conditions it is far easier to stick arrows in the ground than keep them in your belt."
This is the most likely explanation for the practice. Even educated doctors in the early 1900's routinely delivered babies with their bare hands (without even washing), and often right after performing autopsies and anatomical dissections on corpses. Up to 30% of women often died because of resulting sepsis. So people back in the middle ages couldn't have known that dirt would cause infections.
logik316 9 months ago
Yeah, chainmail's design is definitely meant to block slashes or hits from melee weapons, it's full of holes anyways so arrows would easily peirce. Even though that is a different kind of chainmail that uses loops, instead of it swirling around like a fence. The solid metal armor, like breastplates and helmets are made to block arrows. Cool test, although you were using a differnt type of chainmail, that was lacking in quality.
ToaRanen7 9 months ago
@ToaRanen7 Totally agree. Maille seems to have been used under plate towards the 15th century when bows became more powerful. Thanks for enjoying the video, though it really wasn't meant to be a proper test otherwise we would have used padding and rivetted maille.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
That doesn't prove that mail in conjunction with the full gear wasn't effective against arrows. They wore a thick purpoint beneath it. Plus, an arrow almost never hit head on against a stationary target. The fact that you had trouble hitting the mail in the first place in part makes the point of 1) it was hard to hit a moving knight, 2) the arrow would virtually never hit dead on, but at an angle, which would likely veer off of the mail.
RealCrusadeHistory 9 months ago
@RealCrusadeHistory It was not meant to prove nor disprove the efficacy of maille worn with padding. I thought the description made that obvious. It is ridiculous to say arrows almost never hit head on. Were you there at every battle? The difficulty of hitting a small square of maille is irrelevant. The target was more often than not massed ranks of soldiers. People did get hit with arrows. Arrows don't "veer" off maille like they do plate. If anything maille catches them.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum
Of course it's not ridiculous. It's perfectly logical. How often is an arrow going to hit a moving target in a precisely straight line? Virtually never. It's going to hit it from all sorts of degrees of "sideways". Stretching a little square of chainmail over a flat surface then standing in front of it and firing an arrow into it proves nothing about how an arrow would hit a warrior garbed in mail in a battle.
RealCrusadeHistory 9 months ago
@RealCrusadeHistory I don't know why I bother to include a description with my videos as it is clear no one reads them. This is not an authentic test. It was a specific reply to re-enactor friends of mine who made specific claims about butted maille worn over simple clothing. However, I stand by my comments regarding head on hits. During the Hundred Years War men-at-arms fought dismounted. It's unlikely they could run or weave. Many hits would still have hit head on, that's logical too.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@RealCrusadeHistory I am sure Bigbowbrum welcomes all points of views and indeed this is a discussion for the functionality of a yew bow armed with bodkin arrows against chainmail.
Althought it could help if you study the pasics of medieval warfare to give more educated and interesting counter arguments.
equalizert 9 months ago
Imagine the ancient European "Barbarians" armed with wonder weapons like this during their wars with the Romans. The Roman Legions would have been cut to pieces.
Stordongen 9 months ago
From tests ive seen done when the chain mail is hit, the bodkin can force the links apart at such speed they fragment the mail links.The arrow then throws these bits of fragmented iron and steel into the wound the arrow causes, so getting the arrow out means nothing when you've got bits of rusty link floating around you body. can any one say tetanus ??
TheMetalHeaded 9 months ago
@TheMetalHeaded Very Interesting. Remember that medieval rivetted maille was backed by padded jacks or equivallent. I imagine the padding would stop most fragments but I guess it is possible. Any arrow that penetrated flesh would also take with it dirt & scraps of clothing which definitely caused infection. I remember reading the French believed the English were using poisoned arrows because of this kind of infection. Musket balls produced similar effects in the 17th Century English Civil War.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum I do not know personally any documented cases of english using poisoned arrows but this is only half of the truth.
It was common to cover the arrows with human extrament or if this was not handy just stick them in ground contaminating the arrows and increasing the change of infections, even if the arrow was removed succefully.
Biological warfare was common in medieval era and disease was used as weapon especially in siege operations.
equalizert 9 months ago
@equalizert Yes I'm sure they used every trick in the book if they could, noting how human or animal remains were shot into besieged towns using trebuchets to spread disease. My experience as an archer has taught me that in battle conditions it is far easier to stick arrows in the ground than keep them in your belt. Whether they consciously thought about the effects the dirt would have on the target's wounds is something I don't think we shall ever know for sure. Very interesting though.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@equalizert
I doubt that. People in the middle ages understood that corpses of diseased people could spread disease, so they would sometimes catapult dead plague victims over enemy walls. But even surgeons didn't understand the causes of bacterial infections (or how good hygiene prevented them) until germ theory was discovered in the early 20th century, so how could the medievals possibly know that dirt or excrement in wounds could cause sickness?
logik316 9 months ago
@logik316 Good comment Logik, and I don't disagree with your reasoning. However, we should remember that just because they didn't understand germ theory doesn't mean they couldn't, through experience, associate dirt with disease. They may not have understood why or how a dirty wound became sceptic, but they could still observe the connection. Barber surgeons on the battlefield knew enough to clean wounds with wine or vinegar and even use Myrrh as an antisceptic.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum
It's plausible that people long ago may have figured out purely through trial & error that washing a wound, or treating it with certain herbs resulted in better healing. But if that's the case, then that knowledge didn't make it to 19th century Europe. In 1847 there was a Hungarian physician by the name of Ignaz Semmelweis, who was deemed to be insane by all the other doctors simply for insisting that they should wash their hands before going into surgery. Not kidding, google him.
logik316 9 months ago
@logik316 Yes, amazing how such basics were not observed in 1847. In 1403 Henry V (then prince) was hit in the face by an arrow at the battle of Shrewsbury. John Bradmore, a London surgeon, successfully extracted the arrowhead in a procedure which he later wrote up in full. It includes "I cleansed the wound with a syringe full of white wine" and "within twenty days the wound was perfectly well cleansed." He also treated the wound with honey, another known antisceptic.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum It's incredible, but you've got to consider that people didn't have even the slightest idea of the existence of bacteriae. It was unimaginable at the time. Sickness was caused by breath, or Divine wrath. You can see the amazing progress medecine has made in just over a century
walatalalaw 9 months ago
like this better then lock in load
joec123able 9 months ago
I think most people with knowledge of medieval warfare know chainmail was designed to protect against glansing/cutting blows made my swords and similar weapons with cutting edge.
Going against late era longbow in another hand was bloody murder hence tactics were different tackling english/welsh archers.
Good point to remember is not all armies has such good longbowmen and against weaker bows chaimail was quite efficient at least minimising the penetration
equalizert 10 months ago
nice video but im sorry that mail isnt even close to butted chain mail the gauge of the rings is probably 16 gauge isnt it? that was to thin they used to go up to 14 gauge and the rings must be flattend out thats real chain mail and her strength goes in how you place the rings and in which direction they are facing. Im just saying cos i am a armourer and i produce lots of chain mail and i even tested riveted and butted chainmail and the only arrows that will penetrate chain mail is bodkin arrows
darmenia1 10 months ago
how close r u to the target
lotrojoe 10 months ago
@lotrojoe Not far. 10 - 15 yards.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
I have a question about these square plates which you fire. With what or how they are made? Because I do not quite know what is needed to make such a shield. Sorry for any spelling mistakes, but not too fluent in English.
TheCzlowiEklasu 10 months ago
@TheCzlowiEklasu Hi. If you are referring to the large target on which the maille is pinned then that is made out of compressed straw. You should be able to buy one from most archery stores. Best wishes.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
What music did you have playing at the beginning? Certainly suits the video!
LegioXFretensis 10 months ago
@LegioXFretensis It was a piece of shareware downloaded from the Soundclick website, by Michael pillitiere. I can't remember the title.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
What was the poundage of the bow you were using in this test?
cheesedude9998 11 months ago
@cheesedude9998 Two bows were used. One was 90lbs and the other 100 or 110lbs I seem to remember.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
What was the range?
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer Not far, 10 - 15 yards.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
@bigbowbrum to be honest would a good longbow/warbow could go true a good platearmor in the front? (not from 15 yards)??? and in that role waht weapon would be best 4 go true plate a good crossbow or a bow?
SweStuff94 10 months ago
@SweStuff94 Crossbows with mechanical aids and high draw weights could penetrate armour easier than a bow, but not all armour was the same so it is impossible to say yes or no. Contemporary battle reports from medieval chroniclers record arrows bouncing off plate armour just as frequently as arrows penetrating. Clearly bows were effective otherwise they would not have been used in such high numbers, but we don't know how often they could penetrate armour, or which kinds they could not penetrate.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
@bigbowbrum ahha :P
SweStuff94 10 months ago
@bigbowbrum The archers could be used even for strategicall reasons...A cloud of deadly iron arrows could make a few kills and make the troops really stressed...
Roflmaoistable 10 months ago
@bigbowbrum
Which is indeed - critical range for the bow, and there is no gambeson underneath it. Butted mail is poor against piercing - i got enough of it to know, but you kind of stacked the odds a bit here.
shashaveli 10 months ago
if you can do this again you should try using medieval broad heads for the arrows
SuperNolanator 11 months ago
yeah but what you've done is put a piece of chain mail flat against a target that has no give in it and no padding between it and the mail and shot it at right angles with a long bow (which were amazing weapons) from what i doubt was a very long distance. this isn't an accurate test of the protection that chain mail provided.
chain mail was worn for just about 2000 years. you'd think that if it wasnt working they would have changed to something els.
renegade94pro 11 months ago
@renegade94pro The test was in reply to specific comments made by a specific group of people, as my description explains. It was never meant to be an historically correct battlefield test. For the vast majority of those "2,000 years" maille did not come up against the 14th/15th century warbow. As soon as it did we see it worn with plate, not on its own.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
@renegade94pro the japanese Samurai used kind of a parachute that the wind blew a silk sheet behind their backs, and amazingly it worked very well against arrows.....search or google for it. I think I saw it on Discovery Channel or Military Channel. Anyone know the name of what I'm talking about?
JackieFan123 11 months ago
@JackieFan123 Yes, the Mongols had a form of that too.
One thing about these comments: Don't forget RANGE. The range at which these targets are being hit is critical! Penetrating all sorts of armor at 15 yards is nice, but you have ONE SHOT to hit a charging opponent at that range before his sword splits your skull! Especially if he is on a horse!
TheLoyalOfficer 11 months ago
@TheLoyalOfficer dude, archers were behind the own main battle line. noone lets his archers being charged by cavalry or infantry.
remember that archers are bad at melee and will always try to not get involved into hand to hand combat.
MisantrophSK 10 months ago
Hi
Would like to see you do that with historical riveted mail or solid riveted every other row. Butted chain mail is quite easy to penetrate...
pingle94 1 year ago
what kind of arrow head are you using ?
tardfuck89 1 year ago
@tardfuck89 The heads are all hand-forged by Hector Cole. We mainly used type 9 or type 10 bodkins as well as the heavy war or "plate cutter" bodkin. Hector has a great site online with photos of all the different types.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum Not a bad point about hitting from a distance, but if you hit somebody's side you would indeed be hitting the maille at an angle. Oh, and yes. I know butted maille was never used in battle.
Andernerd 1 year ago
I think it's funny that this test was done with the assumption that the arrows would be hitting head on. Try doing this from an angle. And I'm not sure what distance this was done from, but was it at least realistic?
Andernerd 1 year ago
@Andernerd You are quite right. No army in the history of medieval warfare ever approached their enemy from the front, or if they had no choice then at the very least they would all walk sideways to prevent the arrows from hitting them head on. ;o) Seriously though, this was never intended to be realistic as butted maille was never used in battle, as all my comments go to explain. If we had put the target at 200 yards we would still be there now trying to hit that small patch of maille! ha ha.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum
Butted was used to some extent by the Romans
Metalheadyup 11 months ago
@Andernerd your right , and i find the reply you got unsatifactory, what iriatates me is the "i wouldent want to war chain in battle comment"......they wore it for hundreds of years, it must have worked
FellBlade9 11 months ago
@FellBlade9 I don't agree that my reply was unsatisfactory at all. Andernerd suggests maille never received frontal hits. To do so is preposterous. Maille was designed to limit damage from slashing cuts. Yes, it was effective against arrows during the crusades but this site is interested soley in the golden years of the warbow. i.e. the 14th & 15th centuries. By then maille, if used at all, was worn UNDER plate and padding. It would not protect against these bows on its own.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
hard background behind mail only contributed to test being not accurate
TheVatrogasacMirko 1 year ago
I did the same test (I was so confident I was going to hold it over my chest!!, but was persuaded round) A home made bow about 12lb and field points. still destroyed butted maile.
Can anyone vouch for riveted maile?
davidcarr3 1 year ago
ouch
nolangreen 1 year ago
chainmail is good at facing swords and knifes etc.
tomucaat 1 year ago
Please take a look at this video Deadliest Warrior : Thrand's reply to Roman Vs. Rajput 2 of 2
conncork 1 year ago
I never understood why chainmail or heavy armour was worn, the cons seem to to far outnumber the pros. its heavy, restrictive, helmet obscures vision, loss of mobility and speed when dodging deflecting attacking and counter attacking, extra weight means u fatigue sooner so can't fight anymore and as every test on youtube shows that a good swing or thrust of typical weapons used pierces through with ease. A good shield and lighter leather armour to stop slashes had to be the better choice?
PangeaSpreads 1 year ago
@PangeaSpreads okay... here is the logic.
a full armour suit's worth, in today's standards, would be about the same price of a house, or even more... the thing is, it was difficult to make, ridiculously expensive, etc... don't you think they would've not used it if it didn't work? It did work, and extremely well, plus, the movies of thousands of warriors with mail and plate? that's not very accurate... most soldiers had leather and cloth, few had the privilege of mail and plate.
luciferiexcelsil 1 year ago 2
@PangeaSpreads Nerds on the internet with youtube videos do not know better than two thousand years of chainmail-wearing soldiers.
NikovK 1 year ago 2
two reasons other than the butted mail thing
1.) a person would get hit back when shot,so the arrow would be less effective
2.)notice that the arrow that hit the chainmail did not go through the wood,but the ones that missed did
coreman24680 1 year ago 2
What gauge of wire was that? it looks about 14 gauge. Try doing that to 12 or 10 gauge. I think I will try it with bigger wire, if i can dig out some rings from when I used to make chainmail.
caiusbritannicus1 1 year ago
@caiusbritannicus1 I can't remember but you are probably right. Of course butted maille is not authentic, so the test is only for fun anyway, but I have been told the gauge would be OK if it were rivetted. Good luck with your own tests.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
a sword would even go through that. chainmail was meant to have give behind in like humain skin not a solid backing. try in on a softer background then see how it holds up.
xblCuJo005 1 year ago
Im pretty sure chainmail was an undercoat used against slashing weapons. Works Perfectly as such. However plated armor was worn as outer armor and arrows would be almost obsolete against it.
Takiado 1 year ago
@Takiado Thats not totally true, during the 100 years war, only Knights could afford wear both chainmail and plate armor, standard infetry would wear one of the two, depending on their specification. At 20 yards a Long bow can effectivly penetrate the armor
TheMHandDSfan 1 year ago
Do you sell these? I want one.
TheJohnnycage19 1 year ago
@TheJohnnycage19 Thanks for your interest but I'm not a commercial bowyer, although I have played around and made a couple of bows for my own use. I wish I were good enough to sell them though.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum The ones you have made, do they work like the ones in the videos?
TheJohnnycage19 1 year ago
@TheJohnnycage19 Yes they do, although they didn't have anywhere near as much power. They were just simple target bows.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum haha bollocks,,i was just bustin your balls old chap..u have the best vids on longbows.keep up the great work!!
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
Awaiting your riveted test and how far away are you shooting from?
GamerDudester 1 year ago
@GamerDudester Not far, about 30ft if I remember correctly.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum You see, I've been trying to simulate real life archery in this game called Mount&Blade Warband. And its very hard to come by a test that does the subject justice. I'm sure you are familiar with primary sources saying that crusader sergeants would take arrows like pin-cussions, but I'm sure that was an over-hype. In your mind, against riveted mail with a thick gambeson underneath, what would be the killing range (5/6 shots would kill) of a 150 lb warbow?
GamerDudester 1 year ago
@GamerDudester Difficult to know for sure as I have yet to do any real tests with rivetted maille. I am pretty sure that an arrow from that kind of bow will get through maille and a Gambeson far enough to kill with one shot, but the range is the important factor. I would hazard a guess and say 100 yards would be possible, but until I can do my own tests I am just plucking figures out of thin air. I am still waiting for an armourer to supply me with some good quality maille.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum Ah excellent. I eagerly await your tests =)
GamerDudester 1 year ago
@GamerDudester remember, that crusader were fighting against saracens, what means - arabic bows, which are made for speed and lightness so they are perfect to shoot from a horseback, because of that they can not be compared to english bow in terms of strength and piercing power. So there you have it why historical sources tell us about crusader sergeants that were immune to arrows
RaimoLis 1 year ago
@GamerDudester We need to remember the range. Archers would be firing over long distances for many of their shots and so the arrows would have less energy to penetrate. There are many accounts of knights fighting the saracen coming out of battle looking like hedgehogs and I would say they were hit by arrows over some distance. An arrow can penetrate mail if it is fired close enough and doesn't glance off.
adenjones1 1 year ago
@GamerDudester it would be interesting. but i dont think the results will be in favor of the maile. i only have a 65 pounder with needle bodkins. and my bow penetrates right through at 60-70 yards. even 4 layers of the stuff. personally i think the effectiveness of the bodkin was the big reason why plate armor was created. i had a debate with a knight at a ren faire, he thought his maile would stop my bodkins. i took one and judged penetration before it would break rings. at least 2 inches..
yourredcomrade717 1 year ago
chain mail is just ment for slashing not for arrows and stabs
goodvocalcover 1 year ago
Butted maille was used only very rarely. No it wouldnt stop an arrow but like riveted mail it did provide protection against slashing blows although riveted was far superior and more reliable.
ProtestantIRA 1 year ago
Yeah, after watching this, I'm inclined to say that chain mail doesn't do shit of protection from arrows.
Dithrick 1 year ago
I think chainmail couldn't block stabs from swords, but they seems to be able to block a slice from a sword
randomenvelope 1 year ago
at close range yes. would easily go though. however try long range and see what you find.
jvry8c 1 year ago
wow, thats a small target if your just aiming for the mail
sengfar964 1 year ago
@sengfar964 Thank you! Makes a nice change from people telling me I couldn't hit a barn door! ha ha. Most people fail to appreciate how difficult it is to shoot accurately with one of these heavy draw weight bows. Thanks again for your support. Best wishes.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum you mean you prefer that other than others saying you have bad aim? who wouldnt! the ppl that say things about other ppls bad aim are noobs.
sengfar964 1 year ago
Cool video. I love British history, as a member of the commonwealth, it strikes close to home. I was thinking of taking up archery and I wanted to get a Longbow like what the English archers used back in the days of the Hundred Years War, not one of those gangsta Compound Bows you see red necks using. Any idea where I can buy an English style Longbow?
MajBlood 1 year ago
@MajBlood No problem. I will send you a link of bowyers.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@bigbowbrum Thanks for the links, I will certainly look into the different bows and equipment. I truly appreciate it. Keep up the good work on these interesting videos.
MajBlood 1 year ago
@MajBlood ...although some of us may be rednecks, ill give you that. but there are some cases where we that is a primary source of food so we very well need the best we can get....i shoot all three types; compound recurve and a longbow...i take my 1st deer with my compound and then switch to the long bow for the rest of the season...
Xior100 1 year ago
now, pierce riveted chainmail
rothril 1 year ago
@rothril That's the plan, I am just waiting on the armourer.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
@Enrods pretty good points but as you should know most archers fought fairly close, acompanyed by a pike man for protection they, often shot straight, often at incoming knights(horse less) where only a broad head could penatrate and only at 20 meters i think. but yea i doubt a bow will go through mail easily due to the flexability of the chain armor. thx for listening
TheMHandDSfan 1 year ago
Even if your mail and leather took a lot of the oomf out, if that barb gets in you're buggered. Maybe not deadly buggered, but you certainly wouldn't be happy about it.
The joyous thought of either pushing the arrow through you (lets hope there's no organs near by!) or ripping it out along with a great clod of flesh must be quite demoralising.
EdofEngland 1 year ago
I think that chainmail armor could be penetrated by shortbow (and there is some evidence of it during Crusades), but probably only when fired directly.
Picard578 1 year ago
chainmail was only meant to block slashing, not stabbing or piercing
thewistleboy 1 year ago
english longbow
lepricoun 1 year ago