very cool video! Medieval weapons are so cool, one day i want to learn to shoot a bow, ride a horse and fight with swords - except horses are really tall when you get up there :S. the later shots penetrated because the breastplate was dented out of shape by previous arrows - it is the curved shape which gives it strength as well as increases the chances of glancing blows - needless to say, those arrows against a flat sheet of the same steel would have punctured right through straight away.
question..being somewhat naive and new to this. Wouldnt the maille or gambesons worn under this also provided added protection? Not like I'd let you shoot at me to prove this either way though..lol. Also wouldnt the archers be a little further away, shooting in more of an arc? Again asking to learn not to argue.
@schnucklefutz Yes you are correct on all counts. This video is just a bit of fun against a plate of metal. The medieval layered system of armour/maille/padded jacks etc was very effective against arrows.
there are soo meany facts that are not counted on tests like these 1) if you shoot something directly front then the power the projetaile has is its maximum now if you think that eny bounced of arrow would penetrated plate armor from wierd angle then you must be realy naive cause 1 it loses its power at bounche (alot of it) 2 it is at wierd angle therefor only some percent of penetrating power will go to use and 3 arrow would be blunt.
Wouldn't catch me wearing that armor to prove a point (no pun intended) Looks like it just takes that one arrow to get you. Great video in my opinion.
great and intersting experiment,very well presented and superb information.i am currently studying casting iron,and have had several requests for the bodkin type arrowhead,i see that the one i can get a clear look at is of curved triangular design,i also have been supplied with a waisted round bodkin to replicate,are there any other period designs of bodkin you may be aware of?-thanks once again.
Loved this one. You're all good bowmen to draw at what, 25-35 feet and make good marks on all your arrows. I realise from previous comments that you were not attempting 'scientific' test. All the same, it's very educational. Thanks
Nice videos. And adding to the discussion, one of the reasons to shoot the arrows was to break up formation. The French knights on horseback rode in a line abreast. To break up this line, was to break up momentum. Kill the horses (or wound them) was more important than to kill the riders.
When the knights were on foot, it was a different matter, but then it was also important to at least wound as many knight as possible. Break the lines!
@W4CKYB4CKY I appreciate that this doesn't look very impressive as far too many arrows are simply bouncing off, but we are using replica medieval arrow heads. I do still think the bows we were using were under powered, but good steel armour probably was very difficult to get through even back then.
even though the arrows didnt pierce the armour until the previous arrows damaged it enough, the force and power of those would have been enough to cause serious, painful bruises which would have made the soldier inactive for a while.
I think maybe the failing of any armour of the period would be the sheer number of arrows falling onto it from a sustained volley. Each consecutive shot on target would create weakness until (as is shown in your very enjoyable video) the arrows will begin to pierce the armour.
Hmm, I'm wondering about your point Number 2, I've heard that no hardened steel bodkin arrowheads has ever been recovered from archaeological digs or recorded in medieval sources, how do you justify your claim? Broadheads would probably be made of steel, but then the idea of broadheads piercing plate armor is somewhat funny.
I think at the end of the day, arrow showers were still a very effective tactic against a cavalry charge, primarily because very few horses would be properly barded.
@HaNsWiDjAjA Hi. I mentioned the case hardening to draw a comparison with the Defence Academy tests conducted by Mark Stretton, which show much higher levels of penetration than ours and where hardened heads were used. However, our test was just for fun and was not scientific. Perhaps we will do a better one when we have the time.
That was some fun shooting, I guess if a straight metal sheet can handle that much punishment, that meant Armor could handle some more, by the way, how far were you guys shooting?
@Dagsschiller I wouldn't put too much store in the results from this video. It was just a bit of fun. The heads weren't proper "plate cutters", nor were they sharpened or case hardened. The bows were also at the low end of what we believe they would have used. Great fun though yes! :) We were only shooting from 15 yards away.
I think it's reasonable to expect that anyone preparing defensive position with long bows is going to prefer an elevated position with the wind behind them. With a following wind using a steep parabola at higher wind speeds would significantly increase the effective lethal range of a high drag projectile too.
I have seen a few of you videos now an they are fantastic. I'm now 19 and didn't peruse my love of medieval warfare after something like yr 9. it's great to have these kind of videos to appreciate the brilliance and power of the weapons of our ancestors and you have reignited he passion I had previously. Thanks and please keep making these great videos.
Granted, they're probably using relatively low draw weight bows. English war bows generally had a draw strength of 150-220 lbs. Most bows today don't go past 100 lb draw weight. Also another thing to mention, they aren't using the long, needle-tipped bodkin style arrow points. In fact these look like rather standard, blunt, iron tips.
@Panzervagon Thanks for commenting but I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a couple of points. Firstly there is no record for bow draw weights from the medieval period. We have no idea how they gauged a bow's power. We can only guess what draw weights they may have used through experimental archaeology. The Mary Rose bows (which were Tudor) went no higher than 180lbs, and there were only 2 thought to be that weight out of the 140 recovered (I have examined and handled most of them).
@Panzervagon As to arrow heads, a long, needle bodkin (type 7) would be ineffective against armour as it will curl up. What is needed is a lozenge "plate cutter", preferably sharpened and case hardened. I agree with you that we were not using the latter type of head and our bows were relatively low powered. Common consensus among the English Warbow Society is that a bow of 130lbs draw weight has all the range and hitting power required in battle.
It's like a very large bird... A Roc, of sorts whos just decided tit'd be fun to peck repeatedly at your armour... You can't KILL the bird, it's too massive. You just have to lay there and die... Painfully.. Though I always was a medieval-fantasy type guy.
1 big thing I notice is that your breast plate is flat! Medieval armour was never flat; the curves - glancing surfaces - are what offers the protection not the thickness of the metal. I could probably punch through that plate with a steak knife... If this was a properly curved breastplate I think few if any arrows would have penetrated. Fun what nonetheless.
@AdamtheArchitect Yeah sure Adam, I agree with your comments. This was never meant to be a scientific test, more a bit of fun with a sheet of steel we had kicking around and which we shaped quickly to look a bit like a breastplate. Hopefully in the future we may do something a bit more authentic and see how the results differ. Glad you enjoyed it though. Best wishes to you.
If there was a mass of men at arms running against you from what distance would it be reasonable to start firing and how much arrows would you be able to loose before they would be able to get to you? (propably wouldnt in most cases :-D)
I also wondered if arrows once used would be usable second time. (Maybe gathered after one wave of enemies was fended off)
@lucinqua Good question. An average max range for a 120 - 140lbs draw weight longbow with a 60g war arrow is about 250 yards. There are quotes suggesting "galling" arrows, or lightweight arrows, may even have been used at the outset of a battle to increase this range and force an enemy to begin attacking. A sustainable shot rate of 6 - 10 arrows a minute is probably likely. There are reports of arrows being collected and re-used, such as at Poitiers (1356) but many would be trampled and broken.
@bigbowbrum It's difficult to know how many arrows could be shot before an enemy reached the archers. That would depend on the distance needed to be covered, the terrain, weather and the enemy's speed. Cavalry would of course close much quicker then infantry. Most armies probably massed at a range of 300 - 400 yards, out of bow shot, then would have walked steadily towards the front line. The archers may have had a couple of minutes to loose arrows, perhaps 20 to 30 arrows each?
@dourscot1 At the start of a battle they did yes, but naturally the army wouldn't just stand there and wait to be killed, they would advance and this video represents these closing stages. If we had put a target at 240 yards and filmed the resulting impacts it would have been a very boring video as we would never have hit it!
@dourscot1 ah physics! The final energy of the arrow that hit the enemy is the same that you gave to the arrow when you fire whit the bow! It's conservation of energy
@bartvariumDT I believe it is pretty close, but of course remember that the arrow has not been shot in a vacuum so you have to factor in a loss of energy from drag too.
@bigbowbrum Very entertaining. Showed very well why people wore armor in the first place and why soldiers went to such lengths trying to pierce or get around it. Now if only I can find a test with real riveted/solid mail rather than butted...
@devilwearspradalova Yes arrow heads were always developing to try & keep up with the latest armour. It's a very difficult subject to debate, whether arrows could penetrate armour or not. Clearly not everyone wore the best armour. Some had iron, others steel. The chronicles of battles don't help either as there are just as many references of arrows bouncing off armour as there are of arrows penetrating. Best to say sometimes they did & sometimes they didn't. Armour was worn for a reason.
This ignores the fact that medevil armor and even later armor was very variable. The richest had armor capable of stopping the longbows if they didnt get hit in the wrong spot. The Less wealthy had a guessing game no one knew if theres was top notch.
Still the force itself is gonna hurt and slow the target and good buy anything not in plate from head to foot.
Well, you would think that the bullet could still have a good go at rearranging your ribs and pulping your innards. The bullet doesn't need to pierce the armor for you to feel it.
In any case, the lead is more massive, so it may not actually need to be harder when it just needs to carry the kinetic energy in a smaller amount of space. Modern rockets will fill a tank with bits of flying molten copper.
I would like to see that armor shot with some quality bodkin arrows. I am curious if that makes all the difference. The battle at Agincourt was supposedly swayed by this type of arrow head.
I have a question, because of the way you put the description and the way you've answered some of the questions, have you ever tried shooting at the same target moving closer each step?
How i mean that is say start at 100 yards and keep stepping forward until you end at 20 yards. I'd be curious to know how the effect of an on coming foe could be on your accuracy. Even if in this case it was simulated. Thanks.
@EmperorHilo Good idea, thanks. We do sometimes use that technique for training, but only shooting at a straw boss and not armour. It is not something we have filmed but perhaps we should? At 100 yards it is very difficult to hit a man-sized target but after 60 yards it gets a whole lot easier.
I just want to point out the fact that a bunch of modern era kids with bows cannot compare to Medieval bowmen who were raised from childhood to draw bows of enormous force. Their arm and torso muscles were so developed they actually had considerable skeletal changes that their bodies had evolved to cope with the forces involved. This was confirmed by modern autopsy work performed on medieval remains.
@monsterzeroJr I couldn't agree more, though there are a few modern archers out there who have been raised with the bow from a similar age and to a similar regimen. All most of us can do is give it our best attempt and have great fun doing so. And by the way, I think I like being referred to as a kid. I know Martin will, he's almost 63! :D
@bigbowbrum The only people I can think of who are still raised from practically infants with a bow in their hands would be the Turkic peoples, i.e. the Tatars, Kazakhs, etc. But yeah, archers from the middle ages could draw a 150# bow 30 times without sweating.
@monsterzeroJr Some of the yew longbows had well over 100 lbs draw. That's insane, and even moreso when you realize the rate they could fire that accurately.
@minibikerider1 Very few medieval longbows have ever been found, and none in good enough condition to draw. The best finds were from the Tudor period off the wreck of the Mary Rose. The most powerful bows in the 140 or so that were recovered were the 2 slab-sided bows, both ESTIMATED to be around the 180lbs draw weight mark. The official world record for drawing and shooting a longbow is 200lbs by Mark Stretton.
@bigbowbrum well i may of been mistaken then, sorry guys! but is it really that big of a step to think that medievel men could draw 200 plus because the fact they worked in the fields and fought there whole life to survive and the fact the the strong only survived so you would have a potentially stronger offspring so I believe its possible but the fact we cant find that many bows is no surprise its wood so... I guess we wont know for a bit at least. sorry that I made that mistake
@minibikerider1 Hey no problem. I think you have a valid point. Just because we don't have any physical or written evidence does not mean they didn't exist. However, I am a member of the English Warbow Society (EWBS) with members shooting bows from 100lbs up to 190lbs. What we find is that around 130lbs is an optimum power to effectiveness ratio so more powerful bows don't give that much extra range/penetration to warrant the extra effort.
@bigbowbrum I know bows are no linear in power so if you did make a 200lb plus bow it would be cool to see what it could do I am wondering if there is a sweet spot like from 60-100 lbs huge improvement but then it goes down as you get to 190 lbs but when 200-250 lbs shows up its like the 60-100 lbs improvement but I guess the only way to find that out is to build one and make a stand with a winch and a automatic devise to fire it (not period accurate but would test it)
@monsterzeroJr true but mostly this was an English/French tradition in europe. other major europian factions such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Papel States taught swordsmanship rather than bowmanship at younger ages
@Panz82 Archers were always vulnerable to attack from cavalry which is why the English tried to protect their front and flanks whenever possible, either by using natural obstacles such as ditches, hedges (Poitiers 1356), woodland (flanks at Agincourt 1415) or swamps (flanks at Poitiers), rivers or by digging pits (crecy 1346) or using sharpened stakes (Agincourt). Agreed, best to send the cavalry in first!
@Panz82 Yes good point. The English armies during the Hundred Years War almost always dismounted their Knights to fight on foot with the archers. The main strength of cavalry is when the knight uses a lance rather than to fight just with swords and this was more popular during the Angevin period I believe.
@bigbowbrum if well employed the medieval knights were almost unstoppable..... enemies had to be crafty as wolves to fight against a medieval "tank". I come from Switzerland, and i can say ancient swiss confederacy knew really good how to deal with them. A 10 feet pike is enough :P
@jpavlvs Yes one of the bows is. It is a laminate of Osage on the belly and Hickory on the back. It still shoots like a dream even after almost 10 years of use.
@karam789 The difficult part of that question to answer is when they started using it. It went out of fashion during the middle of the 16th century but you could say they really started using it in massed ranks in the reign of Edward I (13th century) against the Scots. No doubt Edward was influenced by the Welsh use of it against his own army in the preceding years.
@bigbowbrum If I remember correctly, the English didn't have longbows until the Welsh introduced their own somewhere around 1200-1400. I know they were used in the time of Wallace. And again, it may have been earlier. But I know the English didn't create them on their own, maybe remodeled them.
@AmrasTalarom It's true the English didn't invent the longbow, but there is no proof either that the Welsh did or that the English/Normans didn't have them. Edward I's uptake of the bow in numbers was probably influenced by his Welsh wars but bows similar to the Mary Rose examples have been found in England from as far back as 3,000BC. The term "English" longbow is definitely a result of the bows unique use and development in their hands. The Welsh question is certainly very interesting! Cheers
I've watched a bunch of these videos, and they aren't doing much for my view of what a longbow can penetrate... Not surprisingly armour is a lot more effective at stopping arrows than even an elephant.
@Proaconstructor The best armour during the middle ages, at least by the 15th century, was very good protection against arrows. Some was even proof against crossbow bolts. However, even the best armour has its weak spots and of course in every battle you would have participants too poor to own armour, or those using old iron armour.
the fact that the breastplate is flat reduces its ability to deflect arrows to btw. this is more of a test between arrows and a plate of steel, and not much more
@outlawtorndoa Absolutely, that's why the title has "armour" in quotes. It's not a real breastplate just a piece of steel cut to look like one. We can't afford to have an armourer make one just to shoot arrows at! :o)
remember an arrow was 1/2'' thick and weighed about 1800 grains or the weight of a cricket ball have that hit you at over 200 mph from a moving horse its gunna hurt.
@tallrich45uk Hi Rich. Yes that's right, it is a longbow but once the bow was no longer used for warfare its design changed to make it better suited to recreational target shooting. Today we use two names to describe these two, quite different, forms of the longbow - the "Warbow" which describes the medieval design of heavy, full compass self bow and "Victorian" which describes the low poundage, laminated target bow with a stiff centre section.
@malevolenceXXXensues Agreed. It's not real armour, hence the quotes in the title "Armour". It was just a breastplate-shaped piece of steel that we had knocking around. It's not a scientific test just a bit of fun.
@malevolenceXXXensues its carbon content so its very hard and it only looks thin because theyve had to arrange it around the post-you can imaging welded armour with thick joints spreading out to the thinner breastplate and then thick at the crest.
Have you ever heard of armour piercing arrows? They have very heavy heads and the head is shaped like a chisel. There are spurs around the head so it can punch through and not bounce off.
@19ShadowWarrior98 Yes I have a couple, though they were not used in this "test" as we didn't really plan ahead. The small, compact pyramidal front of the head punches the hole, then the chisel edges cut and peel open the armour like a tin opener. The head then tapers down so the rest of the head and the shaft pass through the larger hole without added friction. I've seen them go through armour-quality 1.6mm plate with ease off 120 - 160lb bows. Best wishes.
try puting a lump of mud on the tip of the arrow, that is how the medievil ppl penertrated armoiur the mud impacts first alowing the arrow to slide through smoothly and gives a far greater chance of penetrating and kind of metal
@raver4lyfe16 Erm... by that logic some simple gun oil would do even better.. somehow I don't think it would work though... I mean what would it do? Lubricate the arrow so it slides through easier? lol, I am skeptical :D
Actually they stuck the arrow tips in dirt to contaminate the wounds, thereby increasing the fatality rate of those who were just wounded. Kinda like vietnamese punji sticks.
@bigbowbrum I used be quite much into bows when i was younger , Althought Finnish traditional war bows are similar to the welsh/english longbow they are usually made of composite birch/pine belly being of pine.
Performance is similar to yew bows but trajectory is not as flat.
Well this is all very interesting but unless we know what was used to make plate armour over the years, how thick it was and how it was hardened, if indeed it was, it's really difficult to say how effective arrows would have been at defeating it. Clearly though, arrows will penetrate some types of plate in the right circumstances.
Against mail the medieval arrow penetrated its target every time as mail was designed to protect against glancing blows from the sword.
however during the late years of the 100 year war with France, when this sort of armour was produced the archer would have to be very close to its target to penetrate it.
However, you still have to consider the fact that if their were 100s of arrows coming at you the probability of one hitting you in the neck was extremely high.
@equalizert Umm.. I always thought crossbows were the real reason for the heavy knights' disappearance from the field, as they became sitting ducks to any peasant with a crossbow. Muskets were a bit later, although the musket wieding troops often had breastplate but then again so does the soldier today. At least the modern equivalent..
Video is good stuff, I like the setting. The penetration of the arrow is not the only thing to concider, the blunt trauma is a good point too. Gambeson helped.
@OmahaLasse not even that the reason for ARMOUR's lessening was definately gunpowder,
what swept the knight from the battlefield was economics, and tactics, the knight was like a human bazooka sent in one direction to charge with couched lance at an enemy, they were hugely expensive tomaintain their expensive armour for knight AND horse, and they wernt all that good for anything other than acting as lancers.whereas lighter non noble cavalry were much better suited to battles and campaigns.
@harbinger9111 Good comment and I agree with most of your points, but the bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose didn't go up to that draw weight. The two largest were thought to have a draw weight of approx. 180lbs, and they were in the minority. Most were nearer the 120 - 140lbs mark. Medieval man was tough but he wasn't superhuman.
@harbinger9111 Hi. The arrow heads are correct but the plate is not authentic. It was just a bit of fun. There is no evidence that bows of 250lbs draw weight were ever used. The heaviest recovered from the Mary Rose were thought to be around 180lbs max, and they were in the minority as a cross section of the bows found. Most were much lower. Neither is there any recorded instance of modern archers being able to fully draw over 200lbs, which is the current world record.
There's a reason why the bows were 120 to 150 pounds and that the bodkin armor-piercing arrowheads were sharpened and hardened, which would have been needed to puncture armor that is not even as strong as that in the video. According to sources at the time, if the man-at-arms was close enough for a flat trajectory shot, the bodkin easily pierced the armor, right in the chest area. I'd say considering the conditions for this video, the video proves that those sources were correct.
@GameFreaksStudios and your point is? Because no one would wear five layers of plate armour.... it would be completely impractical to say the least.... I cant imagine a horse taking that weight on it's back, nor a Knight being able to even ride or mount the horse let alone fight and survive.
I have personally put on historically true armour. there is only padding under the chest plate the cailmail you see is sewen into a padded underlay only in areas where there is a gap in the plate and yes a bodkin can go through chain. archers would kill a knights horse and then skirmishers would rush in and take them out
has anyone taken into the account the bows pulling power? considering now days bows are around top at 100 pounder but during the ages bows used to be at around 100+ poundage so i was told by a bow club.
at Agincourt the English archers (c. 800) obliterated a much larger army of French knights (7,000). The same thing had happened c. 100 years earlier at Crecy and Poiters. Arrows certainly penetrated armor, but military men are always morons and never learn (see: machine guns, WW1)
I can pretty much guarantee that no bow ever pierced armor, and I have seen much evidence involving the technology in use during the Hundred Years War that arrows really couldn't pierce armor either. I don't know enough about how knights fought to have an opinion about how effective they were when fighting on foot, but one source shows that if their feet were stuck in mud when they dismounted, which is allegedly what occurred at Agincourt, that they were basically defenseless.
@CrashVegas1 I can't see how you can make such a guarantee. I don't believe arrows could pierce the best armour, but not all armour was of the same quality. Plate was used for many centuries. Iron was softer than steel, carbon contents varied, designs evolved. Side armour was thinner than front armour etc plus there are just too many contemporary reports of arrows penetrating. All anyone can guarantee is that we shall never know 100% either way. I have seen 2mm replica armour pierced before.
@bigbowbrum an armour is really resistant, but don't forget that if even an arrow would penetrate the steel plate, behind they had some chainmail that would have stopped these arrows. (or if penetrate just a little bit)
@tooropforce Yes I completely agree. By the 15th century plate armour was part of a very sophisticated system of defense, including layers of maille and padded armour.
I think that it was nearly impossible for any longbow archer to really penetrate trough a well made 14th century suit of knightly armor. But I think people have been laying to much emphasis on the amor penetration properties of longbow arrows. Only a handfull of nobles were fortunate enough to wear knightly armor. Thus massed longbow attacks were defestating on horses and "lesser" men. Armor penetration did not matter so much. Range is what it was all about. The heavy bows shot arrows further.
@bigbowbrum Actually I always thought that the energy of an arrow will be more or less the same at the other end of a parabolic curve. Going up, the arrow looses velocity but because gravity is the same on the way down, it would gain the velocity it lost. So if firing at 200 yds, as long as the trajectory is correct, I thought it would keep the same energy.
@PandaManMk2000 Yes that's right, but you also have to factor in air resistance which takes a fair amount of power out of the shot too. However it is surprising just how much energy is left after 200 yards.
@XxUlvenxX Glad you enjoyed the video. We hope to make many more when time allows. I can't remember the name of the track used but it is shareware music from composer Stefano Maccarelli.You can find him on the Soundclick site.
These bodkins clearly penetrated, but by how far? Did you push them back into the holes to find out? And of course, I presume you stuck a blob of beeswax on the points to stop the arrows skidding off with a more glancing blow.
And of course armour piercing benefits from a hard point with weight behind it. Momentum can be more important than energy. Have you tried this with a wrap of lead behind the point?
@donepearce Nice comment and suggestions but we didn't approach this with any preparation. It was just a bit of fun. There are so many things wrong with it. The metal is obviously not armour, not heat treated, shaped and so forth. The arrow heads were not case hardened or sharpened. The bows were under powered. The range was too close. We didn't measure any depths of penetration because it was just for fun and although I have heard the beeswax theory we did not use any.
I think youd find that if you put a model, or something else, behind the armor plate to simulate a body, the piercing power of the arrows would increase alot, seeing as the armor would not be able to "bounce" back with each shot.
I just read MrWhitescarf's comment about shooting the horse and even though knights would have no problem fighting on foot wouldn't being dismounted cause you to take longer to reach the enemy which means they can shoot more arrows at you. Also wouldn't you slow down other knights on horse behind you making them go around? just some thoughts i had.
very cool video! Medieval weapons are so cool, one day i want to learn to shoot a bow, ride a horse and fight with swords - except horses are really tall when you get up there :S. the later shots penetrated because the breastplate was dented out of shape by previous arrows - it is the curved shape which gives it strength as well as increases the chances of glancing blows - needless to say, those arrows against a flat sheet of the same steel would have punctured right through straight away.
iliketha 1 week ago
I want this video on my GB130 unit.
octaviocurti922 2 weeks ago
What song
Nez162 2 weeks ago
armor works
HunterHornet 3 weeks ago
This video went viral on Ecuador
guygallagher410 1 month ago
.50 Cal vs 1mm armour thickness = overkill. Medieval arrow vs 0.5 mm armour = Fail?
mathsprofessional 1 month ago
question..being somewhat naive and new to this. Wouldnt the maille or gambesons worn under this also provided added protection? Not like I'd let you shoot at me to prove this either way though..lol. Also wouldnt the archers be a little further away, shooting in more of an arc? Again asking to learn not to argue.
schnucklefutz 1 month ago
@schnucklefutz Yes you are correct on all counts. This video is just a bit of fun against a plate of metal. The medieval layered system of armour/maille/padded jacks etc was very effective against arrows.
bigbowbrum 1 month ago
there are soo meany facts that are not counted on tests like these 1) if you shoot something directly front then the power the projetaile has is its maximum now if you think that eny bounced of arrow would penetrated plate armor from wierd angle then you must be realy naive cause 1 it loses its power at bounche (alot of it) 2 it is at wierd angle therefor only some percent of penetrating power will go to use and 3 arrow would be blunt.
kolju666 1 month ago
Wouldn't catch me wearing that armor to prove a point (no pun intended) Looks like it just takes that one arrow to get you. Great video in my opinion.
CannibalCarp 1 month ago
great and intersting experiment,very well presented and superb information.i am currently studying casting iron,and have had several requests for the bodkin type arrowhead,i see that the one i can get a clear look at is of curved triangular design,i also have been supplied with a waisted round bodkin to replicate,are there any other period designs of bodkin you may be aware of?-thanks once again.
hud42cdo 1 month ago
@hud42cdo I will send you a personal message as I would like to include a link. Best wishes.
bigbowbrum 1 month ago
i like how that one arrow got throu right the center of the cross and all others (well most) just bounced off :D
EdadTace 1 month ago
Loved this one. You're all good bowmen to draw at what, 25-35 feet and make good marks on all your arrows. I realise from previous comments that you were not attempting 'scientific' test. All the same, it's very educational. Thanks
MuntucoGer1 1 month ago
Nice videos. And adding to the discussion, one of the reasons to shoot the arrows was to break up formation. The French knights on horseback rode in a line abreast. To break up this line, was to break up momentum. Kill the horses (or wound them) was more important than to kill the riders.
When the knights were on foot, it was a different matter, but then it was also important to at least wound as many knight as possible. Break the lines!
Batavijf 2 months ago
are you actually using flat headed points or just the normal arrow heads?
W4CKYB4CKY 2 months ago
@W4CKYB4CKY I appreciate that this doesn't look very impressive as far too many arrows are simply bouncing off, but we are using replica medieval arrow heads. I do still think the bows we were using were under powered, but good steel armour probably was very difficult to get through even back then.
bigbowbrum 2 months ago
even though the arrows didnt pierce the armour until the previous arrows damaged it enough, the force and power of those would have been enough to cause serious, painful bruises which would have made the soldier inactive for a while.
loadedClownZ 2 months ago
I think maybe the failing of any armour of the period would be the sheer number of arrows falling onto it from a sustained volley. Each consecutive shot on target would create weakness until (as is shown in your very enjoyable video) the arrows will begin to pierce the armour.
acheface 3 months ago
It'd Still bloody hurt !
MrDenniski 3 months ago
Hmm, I'm wondering about your point Number 2, I've heard that no hardened steel bodkin arrowheads has ever been recovered from archaeological digs or recorded in medieval sources, how do you justify your claim? Broadheads would probably be made of steel, but then the idea of broadheads piercing plate armor is somewhat funny.
I think at the end of the day, arrow showers were still a very effective tactic against a cavalry charge, primarily because very few horses would be properly barded.
HaNsWiDjAjA 3 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA Hi. I mentioned the case hardening to draw a comparison with the Defence Academy tests conducted by Mark Stretton, which show much higher levels of penetration than ours and where hardened heads were used. However, our test was just for fun and was not scientific. Perhaps we will do a better one when we have the time.
bigbowbrum 3 months ago
hahaha, I guess you are right, it seemed fun after all
Dagsschiller 3 months ago
is there any signifigence in the almost hospitaler emblem on the armour?
ajcvikingboy 3 months ago
@ajcvikingboy No, not at all. It just looked nice at the time with the colours we had to hand.
bigbowbrum 3 months ago
@bigbowbrum Thanks Just wondering, Great vids btw :D
ajcvikingboy 3 months ago in playlist More videos from bigbowbrum
That was some fun shooting, I guess if a straight metal sheet can handle that much punishment, that meant Armor could handle some more, by the way, how far were you guys shooting?
Dagsschiller 3 months ago in playlist Más vídeos de bigbowbrum
@Dagsschiller I wouldn't put too much store in the results from this video. It was just a bit of fun. The heads weren't proper "plate cutters", nor were they sharpened or case hardened. The bows were also at the low end of what we believe they would have used. Great fun though yes! :) We were only shooting from 15 yards away.
bigbowbrum 3 months ago
I think it's reasonable to expect that anyone preparing defensive position with long bows is going to prefer an elevated position with the wind behind them. With a following wind using a steep parabola at higher wind speeds would significantly increase the effective lethal range of a high drag projectile too.
KnockoffNigeI 3 months ago
Did you hear that arrow spinning against that armor at the 40 sec mark... I wonder what the helical is on those arrows.
fatlossbydesign 4 months ago
I have seen a few of you videos now an they are fantastic. I'm now 19 and didn't peruse my love of medieval warfare after something like yr 9. it's great to have these kind of videos to appreciate the brilliance and power of the weapons of our ancestors and you have reignited he passion I had previously. Thanks and please keep making these great videos.
hazzermwakey 4 months ago
I can just imagine a knight in that armor, strolling up to an English gate, not giving a single shit.
LamentOfInnocence1 4 months ago
Granted, they're probably using relatively low draw weight bows. English war bows generally had a draw strength of 150-220 lbs. Most bows today don't go past 100 lb draw weight. Also another thing to mention, they aren't using the long, needle-tipped bodkin style arrow points. In fact these look like rather standard, blunt, iron tips.
Panzervagon 5 months ago
@Panzervagon Thanks for commenting but I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a couple of points. Firstly there is no record for bow draw weights from the medieval period. We have no idea how they gauged a bow's power. We can only guess what draw weights they may have used through experimental archaeology. The Mary Rose bows (which were Tudor) went no higher than 180lbs, and there were only 2 thought to be that weight out of the 140 recovered (I have examined and handled most of them).
bigbowbrum 5 months ago 5
@Panzervagon As to arrow heads, a long, needle bodkin (type 7) would be ineffective against armour as it will curl up. What is needed is a lozenge "plate cutter", preferably sharpened and case hardened. I agree with you that we were not using the latter type of head and our bows were relatively low powered. Common consensus among the English Warbow Society is that a bow of 130lbs draw weight has all the range and hitting power required in battle.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
It's like a very large bird... A Roc, of sorts whos just decided tit'd be fun to peck repeatedly at your armour... You can't KILL the bird, it's too massive. You just have to lay there and die... Painfully.. Though I always was a medieval-fantasy type guy.
ADwarvenBard 5 months ago
Damn they should write on it: "Not Arrow-proof"
EngelderStille 5 months ago
1 big thing I notice is that your breast plate is flat! Medieval armour was never flat; the curves - glancing surfaces - are what offers the protection not the thickness of the metal. I could probably punch through that plate with a steak knife... If this was a properly curved breastplate I think few if any arrows would have penetrated. Fun what nonetheless.
AdamtheArchitect 5 months ago
@AdamtheArchitect Yeah sure Adam, I agree with your comments. This was never meant to be a scientific test, more a bit of fun with a sheet of steel we had kicking around and which we shaped quickly to look a bit like a breastplate. Hopefully in the future we may do something a bit more authentic and see how the results differ. Glad you enjoyed it though. Best wishes to you.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
gee wizz I wouldn't like to wear that if those arrows was coming at me, the power of long bow amazes me
leonardo1480 5 months ago
0:32 man down
Lado916 5 months ago
If there was a mass of men at arms running against you from what distance would it be reasonable to start firing and how much arrows would you be able to loose before they would be able to get to you? (propably wouldnt in most cases :-D)
I also wondered if arrows once used would be usable second time. (Maybe gathered after one wave of enemies was fended off)
lucinqua 5 months ago
@lucinqua Good question. An average max range for a 120 - 140lbs draw weight longbow with a 60g war arrow is about 250 yards. There are quotes suggesting "galling" arrows, or lightweight arrows, may even have been used at the outset of a battle to increase this range and force an enemy to begin attacking. A sustainable shot rate of 6 - 10 arrows a minute is probably likely. There are reports of arrows being collected and re-used, such as at Poitiers (1356) but many would be trampled and broken.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
@bigbowbrum It's difficult to know how many arrows could be shot before an enemy reached the archers. That would depend on the distance needed to be covered, the terrain, weather and the enemy's speed. Cavalry would of course close much quicker then infantry. Most armies probably massed at a range of 300 - 400 yards, out of bow shot, then would have walked steadily towards the front line. The archers may have had a couple of minutes to loose arrows, perhaps 20 to 30 arrows each?
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
you trying to wear it off or what
DiGiTiLmAx 5 months ago
I would wear this fighting the english army... back in 1428 I mean, not today =P
Graywolf116 5 months ago
After it gets through the plate armor, it still has to get through the chainmail, then possibly leather.
Zaharkl 5 months ago
The arrows fired in battle travelled in a parabola, reaching great height before gaining speed as they fell. This video does not reproduce that.
dourscot1 5 months ago
@dourscot1 At the start of a battle they did yes, but naturally the army wouldn't just stand there and wait to be killed, they would advance and this video represents these closing stages. If we had put a target at 240 yards and filmed the resulting impacts it would have been a very boring video as we would never have hit it!
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
@dourscot1 ah physics! The final energy of the arrow that hit the enemy is the same that you gave to the arrow when you fire whit the bow! It's conservation of energy
bartvariumDT 5 months ago
@bartvariumDT I believe it is pretty close, but of course remember that the arrow has not been shot in a vacuum so you have to factor in a loss of energy from drag too.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
Wonder if you could do this with atlatls with metal tipped darts...
Lukos0036 5 months ago
Interesting. But what was the distance between the bow and target?
jpavlvs 6 months ago
@jpavlvs Very close as it was just a bit of fun. I would guess it was around 10 yards.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum Very entertaining. Showed very well why people wore armor in the first place and why soldiers went to such lengths trying to pierce or get around it. Now if only I can find a test with real riveted/solid mail rather than butted...
Spacepup18 5 months ago
@bigbowbrum from what i've read some medieval arrows were made with heavier tips to penetrate armor
devilwearspradalova 5 months ago
@devilwearspradalova Yes arrow heads were always developing to try & keep up with the latest armour. It's a very difficult subject to debate, whether arrows could penetrate armour or not. Clearly not everyone wore the best armour. Some had iron, others steel. The chronicles of battles don't help either as there are just as many references of arrows bouncing off armour as there are of arrows penetrating. Best to say sometimes they did & sometimes they didn't. Armour was worn for a reason.
bigbowbrum 5 months ago
This ignores the fact that medevil armor and even later armor was very variable. The richest had armor capable of stopping the longbows if they didnt get hit in the wrong spot. The Less wealthy had a guessing game no one knew if theres was top notch.
Still the force itself is gonna hurt and slow the target and good buy anything not in plate from head to foot.
valcan321 6 months ago
@gradyjas
Well, you would think that the bullet could still have a good go at rearranging your ribs and pulping your innards. The bullet doesn't need to pierce the armor for you to feel it.
In any case, the lead is more massive, so it may not actually need to be harder when it just needs to carry the kinetic energy in a smaller amount of space. Modern rockets will fill a tank with bits of flying molten copper.
dhx84 6 months ago
take a couple o' hits eh' mate?
headshot0211 6 months ago
I would like to see that armor shot with some quality bodkin arrows. I am curious if that makes all the difference. The battle at Agincourt was supposedly swayed by this type of arrow head.
strassur 6 months ago
I'd like to see it again, but without the armor being supported from behind... I don't think I agree with 9, but I don't suppose we'll ever find out.
blossfechter 6 months ago
I have a question, because of the way you put the description and the way you've answered some of the questions, have you ever tried shooting at the same target moving closer each step?
How i mean that is say start at 100 yards and keep stepping forward until you end at 20 yards. I'd be curious to know how the effect of an on coming foe could be on your accuracy. Even if in this case it was simulated. Thanks.
EmperorHilo 6 months ago
@EmperorHilo Good idea, thanks. We do sometimes use that technique for training, but only shooting at a straw boss and not armour. It is not something we have filmed but perhaps we should? At 100 yards it is very difficult to hit a man-sized target but after 60 yards it gets a whole lot easier.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum Thanks, look forward to watching it.
EmperorHilo 6 months ago
I just want to point out the fact that a bunch of modern era kids with bows cannot compare to Medieval bowmen who were raised from childhood to draw bows of enormous force. Their arm and torso muscles were so developed they actually had considerable skeletal changes that their bodies had evolved to cope with the forces involved. This was confirmed by modern autopsy work performed on medieval remains.
monsterzeroJr 6 months ago
@monsterzeroJr I couldn't agree more, though there are a few modern archers out there who have been raised with the bow from a similar age and to a similar regimen. All most of us can do is give it our best attempt and have great fun doing so. And by the way, I think I like being referred to as a kid. I know Martin will, he's almost 63! :D
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum The only people I can think of who are still raised from practically infants with a bow in their hands would be the Turkic peoples, i.e. the Tatars, Kazakhs, etc. But yeah, archers from the middle ages could draw a 150# bow 30 times without sweating.
Thrawn6211 6 months ago
@monsterzeroJr Some of the yew longbows had well over 100 lbs draw. That's insane, and even moreso when you realize the rate they could fire that accurately.
punchdrunkatheist 6 months ago
@monsterzeroJr they have been confirmed reports of bows being 200 lbs draw weight and a cope the top they found was 250 lbs
minibikerider1 6 months ago
@minibikerider1 Very few medieval longbows have ever been found, and none in good enough condition to draw. The best finds were from the Tudor period off the wreck of the Mary Rose. The most powerful bows in the 140 or so that were recovered were the 2 slab-sided bows, both ESTIMATED to be around the 180lbs draw weight mark. The official world record for drawing and shooting a longbow is 200lbs by Mark Stretton.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum well i may of been mistaken then, sorry guys! but is it really that big of a step to think that medievel men could draw 200 plus because the fact they worked in the fields and fought there whole life to survive and the fact the the strong only survived so you would have a potentially stronger offspring so I believe its possible but the fact we cant find that many bows is no surprise its wood so... I guess we wont know for a bit at least. sorry that I made that mistake
minibikerider1 6 months ago
@minibikerider1 Hey no problem. I think you have a valid point. Just because we don't have any physical or written evidence does not mean they didn't exist. However, I am a member of the English Warbow Society (EWBS) with members shooting bows from 100lbs up to 190lbs. What we find is that around 130lbs is an optimum power to effectiveness ratio so more powerful bows don't give that much extra range/penetration to warrant the extra effort.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum I know bows are no linear in power so if you did make a 200lb plus bow it would be cool to see what it could do I am wondering if there is a sweet spot like from 60-100 lbs huge improvement but then it goes down as you get to 190 lbs but when 200-250 lbs shows up its like the 60-100 lbs improvement but I guess the only way to find that out is to build one and make a stand with a winch and a automatic devise to fire it (not period accurate but would test it)
minibikerider1 6 months ago
@monsterzeroJr true but mostly this was an English/French tradition in europe. other major europian factions such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Papel States taught swordsmanship rather than bowmanship at younger ages
MrMeineNamen 6 months ago
well when in medieval battles archers threw their arrows the flight was completely different.... they weren't used to fire arrows on 20 meters.....
Panz82 6 months ago
@Panz82 Agreed, but are you suggesting the enemy army stood still and never advanced towards the archers?
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum no for sure no but tactically is quite useless sending infantry when you can send cavalry on archers.... agree? ;)
Panz82 6 months ago
@Panz82 Archers were always vulnerable to attack from cavalry which is why the English tried to protect their front and flanks whenever possible, either by using natural obstacles such as ditches, hedges (Poitiers 1356), woodland (flanks at Agincourt 1415) or swamps (flanks at Poitiers), rivers or by digging pits (crecy 1346) or using sharpened stakes (Agincourt). Agreed, best to send the cavalry in first!
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum there are some examples in history of knights dismounting and fighting by feet ;) i would call the cavalry, heavy mounted infantry :P
Panz82 6 months ago
@Panz82 Yes good point. The English armies during the Hundred Years War almost always dismounted their Knights to fight on foot with the archers. The main strength of cavalry is when the knight uses a lance rather than to fight just with swords and this was more popular during the Angevin period I believe.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
@bigbowbrum if well employed the medieval knights were almost unstoppable..... enemies had to be crafty as wolves to fight against a medieval "tank". I come from Switzerland, and i can say ancient swiss confederacy knew really good how to deal with them. A 10 feet pike is enough :P
Panz82 6 months ago
Osage and Hickory?
jpavlvs 6 months ago
@jpavlvs Yes one of the bows is. It is a laminate of Osage on the belly and Hickory on the back. It still shoots like a dream even after almost 10 years of use.
bigbowbrum 6 months ago
How would it feel to be one of the soldiers who didnt get the armor?
Forntline infantry, frontline infantry, frontline infantry......
Mustlovetechno 7 months ago
As for the point #1, what is the pull weight of the bows you guys used on this?
Wyrmnax 7 months ago
@Wyrmnax The draw weights of each bow are listed in the opening credits!
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum Duh. Attention span of a butterfly. Thanks for answering.
Wyrmnax 7 months ago
@Wyrmnax Hey no problem, but I would be worried if you really did lose interest after just 9 seconds in! :o) Best wishes to you, Nick.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
tumps for de armour
caspar98765 7 months ago
For how long was the longbow used in the english army?
karam789 7 months ago
@karam789 The difficult part of that question to answer is when they started using it. It went out of fashion during the middle of the 16th century but you could say they really started using it in massed ranks in the reign of Edward I (13th century) against the Scots. No doubt Edward was influenced by the Welsh use of it against his own army in the preceding years.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum Thanks mate, great videos!
karam789 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum If I remember correctly, the English didn't have longbows until the Welsh introduced their own somewhere around 1200-1400. I know they were used in the time of Wallace. And again, it may have been earlier. But I know the English didn't create them on their own, maybe remodeled them.
AmrasTalarom 7 months ago
@AmrasTalarom It's true the English didn't invent the longbow, but there is no proof either that the Welsh did or that the English/Normans didn't have them. Edward I's uptake of the bow in numbers was probably influenced by his Welsh wars but bows similar to the Mary Rose examples have been found in England from as far back as 3,000BC. The term "English" longbow is definitely a result of the bows unique use and development in their hands. The Welsh question is certainly very interesting! Cheers
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
so that's why it's so difficult to kill swordsmen in stronghold 1....
leeknivek 8 months ago
I've watched a bunch of these videos, and they aren't doing much for my view of what a longbow can penetrate... Not surprisingly armour is a lot more effective at stopping arrows than even an elephant.
Proaconstructor 8 months ago
@Proaconstructor The best armour during the middle ages, at least by the 15th century, was very good protection against arrows. Some was even proof against crossbow bolts. However, even the best armour has its weak spots and of course in every battle you would have participants too poor to own armour, or those using old iron armour.
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
the fact that the breastplate is flat reduces its ability to deflect arrows to btw. this is more of a test between arrows and a plate of steel, and not much more
outlawtorndoa 8 months ago
@outlawtorndoa Absolutely, that's why the title has "armour" in quotes. It's not a real breastplate just a piece of steel cut to look like one. We can't afford to have an armourer make one just to shoot arrows at! :o)
bigbowbrum 7 months ago
wasted many arrows?
Tskimmo 8 months ago
remember an arrow was 1/2'' thick and weighed about 1800 grains or the weight of a cricket ball have that hit you at over 200 mph from a moving horse its gunna hurt.
costicaldad 8 months ago
That's gotta hurt. Great vid!
koxiesarmy 8 months ago
What is this warbow? It's a longbow.
tallrich45uk 8 months ago
@tallrich45uk Hi Rich. Yes that's right, it is a longbow but once the bow was no longer used for warfare its design changed to make it better suited to recreational target shooting. Today we use two names to describe these two, quite different, forms of the longbow - the "Warbow" which describes the medieval design of heavy, full compass self bow and "Victorian" which describes the low poundage, laminated target bow with a stiff centre section.
bigbowbrum 8 months ago
it would work if you got the guy to stay there for a while lol just messing around
TheAirhunter69 8 months ago
Ottoman bows in the early 1600s could penetrate this. (NO OFFENSE)
Arifboy163 9 months ago
isn't pull/poundage an issue? these guys all seem to be little fellas!
alanvt1 9 months ago
fantastic!
stringo909 9 months ago
Fucking telephone poles for arrows...
Zyamaman 9 months ago
that armour looks very thin to be considered practical
malevolenceXXXensues 9 months ago
@malevolenceXXXensues Agreed. It's not real armour, hence the quotes in the title "Armour". It was just a breastplate-shaped piece of steel that we had knocking around. It's not a scientific test just a bit of fun.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
@malevolenceXXXensues its carbon content so its very hard and it only looks thin because theyve had to arrange it around the post-you can imaging welded armour with thick joints spreading out to the thinner breastplate and then thick at the crest.
minxel16 7 months ago
doesnt that blunten the arrows
AugustusCallum 9 months ago
@AugustusCallum Yes it can do.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
Have you ever heard of armour piercing arrows? They have very heavy heads and the head is shaped like a chisel. There are spurs around the head so it can punch through and not bounce off.
19ShadowWarrior98 9 months ago
@19ShadowWarrior98 Yes I have a couple, though they were not used in this "test" as we didn't really plan ahead. The small, compact pyramidal front of the head punches the hole, then the chisel edges cut and peel open the armour like a tin opener. The head then tapers down so the rest of the head and the shaft pass through the larger hole without added friction. I've seen them go through armour-quality 1.6mm plate with ease off 120 - 160lb bows. Best wishes.
bigbowbrum 9 months ago
perfect shot at 1:13
masterkiter89 9 months ago
try puting a lump of mud on the tip of the arrow, that is how the medievil ppl penertrated armoiur the mud impacts first alowing the arrow to slide through smoothly and gives a far greater chance of penetrating and kind of metal
raver4lyfe16 9 months ago
@raver4lyfe16 Erm... by that logic some simple gun oil would do even better.. somehow I don't think it would work though... I mean what would it do? Lubricate the arrow so it slides through easier? lol, I am skeptical :D
bellator11 9 months ago
@raver4lyfe16
Actually they stuck the arrow tips in dirt to contaminate the wounds, thereby increasing the fatality rate of those who were just wounded. Kinda like vietnamese punji sticks.
WitheringintheDark 9 months ago
1:13 SWEET who did that shot? Robin Hood?
spider1g5 10 months ago
Entertaining video but it should not to be taken with any seriousness.
The whole question did longbow penetrate armor is rather silly.
Longbow was used for hundreds of years and centuries it could penetrate all known armor.
There were times when armor was supreme becource of new ways of hardening the armor ,then again better piercing arrows were manufactured..
In the end armor defeated longbow... but then muskets come to the scene.
equalizert 10 months ago 18
@equalizert I completely agree. Finally someone who understands the broader picture. Very good comment, thanks.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago 18
@bigbowbrum I used be quite much into bows when i was younger , Althought Finnish traditional war bows are similar to the welsh/english longbow they are usually made of composite birch/pine belly being of pine.
Performance is similar to yew bows but trajectory is not as flat.
equalizert 10 months ago
@bigbowbrum Great comment indeed! I applaud you sir.
davidgrahamscott 9 months ago
@bigbowbrum
Well this is all very interesting but unless we know what was used to make plate armour over the years, how thick it was and how it was hardened, if indeed it was, it's really difficult to say how effective arrows would have been at defeating it. Clearly though, arrows will penetrate some types of plate in the right circumstances.
Boutiquez 7 months ago
@bigbowbrum Great video!
Against mail the medieval arrow penetrated its target every time as mail was designed to protect against glancing blows from the sword.
however during the late years of the 100 year war with France, when this sort of armour was produced the archer would have to be very close to its target to penetrate it.
However, you still have to consider the fact that if their were 100s of arrows coming at you the probability of one hitting you in the neck was extremely high.
MasterArcher97 6 months ago
@equalizert Umm.. I always thought crossbows were the real reason for the heavy knights' disappearance from the field, as they became sitting ducks to any peasant with a crossbow. Muskets were a bit later, although the musket wieding troops often had breastplate but then again so does the soldier today. At least the modern equivalent..
Video is good stuff, I like the setting. The penetration of the arrow is not the only thing to concider, the blunt trauma is a good point too. Gambeson helped.
OmahaLasse 8 months ago
@OmahaLasse not even that the reason for ARMOUR's lessening was definately gunpowder,
what swept the knight from the battlefield was economics, and tactics, the knight was like a human bazooka sent in one direction to charge with couched lance at an enemy, they were hugely expensive tomaintain their expensive armour for knight AND horse, and they wernt all that good for anything other than acting as lancers.whereas lighter non noble cavalry were much better suited to battles and campaigns.
elgostine 7 months ago
@harbinger9111 Good comment and I agree with most of your points, but the bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose didn't go up to that draw weight. The two largest were thought to have a draw weight of approx. 180lbs, and they were in the minority. Most were nearer the 120 - 140lbs mark. Medieval man was tough but he wasn't superhuman.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
@harbinger9111 Hi. The arrow heads are correct but the plate is not authentic. It was just a bit of fun. There is no evidence that bows of 250lbs draw weight were ever used. The heaviest recovered from the Mary Rose were thought to be around 180lbs max, and they were in the minority as a cross section of the bows found. Most were much lower. Neither is there any recorded instance of modern archers being able to fully draw over 200lbs, which is the current world record.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
There's a reason why the bows were 120 to 150 pounds and that the bodkin armor-piercing arrowheads were sharpened and hardened, which would have been needed to puncture armor that is not even as strong as that in the video. According to sources at the time, if the man-at-arms was close enough for a flat trajectory shot, the bodkin easily pierced the armor, right in the chest area. I'd say considering the conditions for this video, the video proves that those sources were correct.
windwardave2010 10 months ago
the three architeers
GameFreaksStudios 10 months ago
after the arrow testing you should have saw the difference between a Medieval sword and the arrows.
miniwars123 10 months ago
immagine 5 plates of that and some leather bet you cant pierce that
GameFreaksStudios 10 months ago
@GameFreaksStudios No, we couldn't pierce that.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
@bigbowbrum oh... lol
GameFreaksStudios 10 months ago
@GameFreaksStudios
sounds like a cataphract to me lol
sultankraver 10 months ago
@GameFreaksStudios and your point is? Because no one would wear five layers of plate armour.... it would be completely impractical to say the least.... I cant imagine a horse taking that weight on it's back, nor a Knight being able to even ride or mount the horse let alone fight and survive.
ginjaninja1988 10 months ago
Well.. luckly there wasnt anyone wearing that
LuLpErSoN123 10 months ago
I have personally put on historically true armour. there is only padding under the chest plate the cailmail you see is sewen into a padded underlay only in areas where there is a gap in the plate and yes a bodkin can go through chain. archers would kill a knights horse and then skirmishers would rush in and take them out
Radimusdepirate 10 months ago
has anyone taken into the account the bows pulling power? considering now days bows are around top at 100 pounder but during the ages bows used to be at around 100+ poundage so i was told by a bow club.
nathan359 10 months ago
What is the music called?
OfficialFearClan 10 months ago
@OfficialFearClan I can't remember the name of the track but it was by Stefano Maccareli and was downloaded from the Soundclick website.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
looking at the actual dammage and in a realistic scenario the knight would be super pissed and have a few nicks a cuts but he wouldnt be dead
marcuspinson 10 months ago
at Agincourt the English archers (c. 800) obliterated a much larger army of French knights (7,000). The same thing had happened c. 100 years earlier at Crecy and Poiters. Arrows certainly penetrated armor, but military men are always morons and never learn (see: machine guns, WW1)
rudyspeaks 10 months ago
I can pretty much guarantee that no bow ever pierced armor, and I have seen much evidence involving the technology in use during the Hundred Years War that arrows really couldn't pierce armor either. I don't know enough about how knights fought to have an opinion about how effective they were when fighting on foot, but one source shows that if their feet were stuck in mud when they dismounted, which is allegedly what occurred at Agincourt, that they were basically defenseless.
CrashVegas1 11 months ago
@CrashVegas1 I can't see how you can make such a guarantee. I don't believe arrows could pierce the best armour, but not all armour was of the same quality. Plate was used for many centuries. Iron was softer than steel, carbon contents varied, designs evolved. Side armour was thinner than front armour etc plus there are just too many contemporary reports of arrows penetrating. All anyone can guarantee is that we shall never know 100% either way. I have seen 2mm replica armour pierced before.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago 2
@bigbowbrum an armour is really resistant, but don't forget that if even an arrow would penetrate the steel plate, behind they had some chainmail that would have stopped these arrows. (or if penetrate just a little bit)
tooropforce 10 months ago
@tooropforce Yes I completely agree. By the 15th century plate armour was part of a very sophisticated system of defense, including layers of maille and padded armour.
bigbowbrum 10 months ago
I think that it was nearly impossible for any longbow archer to really penetrate trough a well made 14th century suit of knightly armor. But I think people have been laying to much emphasis on the amor penetration properties of longbow arrows. Only a handfull of nobles were fortunate enough to wear knightly armor. Thus massed longbow attacks were defestating on horses and "lesser" men. Armor penetration did not matter so much. Range is what it was all about. The heavy bows shot arrows further.
DeHeld8 11 months ago
@battletoads22 the stronger man could have a draw weight of up to 200lbs
theninjainblack1237 11 months ago
Are those steel arrowheads?
Istojataachatearme 11 months ago
120lbs+! Holy crap! No wonder it took ten years to master one of those bows.
battletoads22 11 months ago
I'm pretty sure that guy isn't coming back :).
myjellyrolly 11 months ago
i dont care if the go through or not...gettin hit like that would hurt like hell
TheMordify 11 months ago
How many arrows did it take to pierce the armor?
demomanchaos 11 months ago
any idea on flash penetration? have u done some experiments? like cold steel does using swords on pig corpse
kaaajeee 11 months ago
@kaaajeee No sorry, we haven't tried any tests like that.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
I would really hate to be that soldier.
*thudthudthudthudpokepokethud*
WILL YOU STOP SHOOTING ME?!?!?!?!
ERAplayer 11 months ago
poke,poke,poke,poke
Peta016 11 months ago
What was the range these bows were fired at?
YaBigDummi 1 year ago
@YaBigDummi The bows were shot at 10 - 15 yards, which is very close but we were just having fun.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
@bigbowbrum Actually I always thought that the energy of an arrow will be more or less the same at the other end of a parabolic curve. Going up, the arrow looses velocity but because gravity is the same on the way down, it would gain the velocity it lost. So if firing at 200 yds, as long as the trajectory is correct, I thought it would keep the same energy.
By the way, I like your videos :)
PandaManMk2000 1 year ago
@PandaManMk2000 Yes that's right, but you also have to factor in air resistance which takes a fair amount of power out of the shot too. However it is surprising just how much energy is left after 200 yards.
bigbowbrum 11 months ago
Well thought out & nicely executed. Did enjoy watching when at first was doubtful. Well done.
siryves 1 year ago
Whats the name on the Theme from 0:50 - and out.
Really enjoy these videos man. Keep posting.
XxUlvenxX 1 year ago
@XxUlvenxX Glad you enjoyed the video. We hope to make many more when time allows. I can't remember the name of the track used but it is shareware music from composer Stefano Maccarelli.You can find him on the Soundclick site.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
These bodkins clearly penetrated, but by how far? Did you push them back into the holes to find out? And of course, I presume you stuck a blob of beeswax on the points to stop the arrows skidding off with a more glancing blow.
And of course armour piercing benefits from a hard point with weight behind it. Momentum can be more important than energy. Have you tried this with a wrap of lead behind the point?
donepearce 1 year ago
@donepearce Nice comment and suggestions but we didn't approach this with any preparation. It was just a bit of fun. There are so many things wrong with it. The metal is obviously not armour, not heat treated, shaped and so forth. The arrow heads were not case hardened or sharpened. The bows were under powered. The range was too close. We didn't measure any depths of penetration because it was just for fun and although I have heard the beeswax theory we did not use any.
bigbowbrum 1 year ago
I think youd find that if you put a model, or something else, behind the armor plate to simulate a body, the piercing power of the arrows would increase alot, seeing as the armor would not be able to "bounce" back with each shot.
Tarimoth 1 year ago
I just read MrWhitescarf's comment about shooting the horse and even though knights would have no problem fighting on foot wouldn't being dismounted cause you to take longer to reach the enemy which means they can shoot more arrows at you. Also wouldn't you slow down other knights on horse behind you making them go around? just some thoughts i had.
ranman721 1 year ago
Awesome! Even If it didn't pierce I'm the first to admit i would be on my arse in pain from the concussive force.
Yklip91 1 year ago
I just show this video and read the comments and I find it very interesting.
I believe that many things said here can be true. Also my opinion about the archers( for both longbow and french