Non-Fic Medieval mythbusting (arrows vs breastplates)

Okay, this was something that I stumbled.
TL;DW: French breastplates actually do stop arrows.





The original thing that I was watching was actually this:



that originated from this



If you're familiar with both channels, you'll probably see how one led to another.

Throws a lot of things out of the window, really for me.

 

If swords can't break through plate armor, why would arrows? The real benefit of arrows is mostly intimidation and maybe you'd be lucky.

 

Armor can't cover 100% of the body so... technically rain of arrow can kill a full plate armored knight

 

Only if you are super extremely lucky. What really happens more often is that what is "killed" or at least crippled is the horse, and when a horse goes down, the knight goes down with it and if it happens at a gallop or it comes down on top of the knight, impact or simple crushing is what causes the KIA. The death of the knight is a tertiary effect from injury to the horse and not direct injury to the knight himself.

 

Well... I think it’s more of a matter of distance. If your closer to the target then the arrow will be able to show it’s real penetration power enough to maybe piece armor. But I’m assuming that in medieval times you were far enough away where the archers had to angle their shots to even reach you, and by the time the arrow did reach you, it’s initial speed would’ve dropped and it would rely mainly on gravity to penetrate. Another thing is that I think breastplates are more curved in the front so more likely than not If it was hit by an arrow it would slide off the curve of the armor.
The main point of archers were probably to hit areas not covered by armor because the probability of an arrow penetrating through armor from a couple tens meters away is fairly low. Ofc if you were close to them then it would go through

wait.... I wrote wayyy to much...

 

That's going too far the other way. Many foot soldiers did not wear breastplates, horses could not be fully armored, and like at Agincourt, a tired knight would raise his face mask to breathe. Life long archers of the day had much better eyesight that urban dwellers today.

 

People do have a massive misconception about armor, weapons and warfare in general. Really, vast majority of historical battle didn't have thousands of knights charging into the rain of arrows. Usually it was in the ranges of tens, and fully a armored knight was pretty much like spacemarine from WH40k (limited to weaponry of his time) ,with very few things that could directly kill him.

Even firearms and crossbows didn't really do much to breastplates of their time, what to say about bows from earlier periods.

 

Suppose someone threw a piece of rock at you, it would still have a high chance of killing you. Criminals were executed by being thrown at with rocks by bystanders in ancient times after all. Not to mention arrows with metal tips. Maybe armor can save you but I won't have high hopes surviving a rain of arrow if I'm the only target.

 

Late-Medieval Armour-smiths intentionally shoot there armor with early guns to leave marks there proving that there bullet-proof.

 

I haven't watched it... But I have a feeling that I did watch it ages ago now... Was the first arrow shot under the lower edge of the plate? Because I remember watching a video like that once upon a time and thinking "Man, I wonder if that would be painful if it went even further down"

Pretty much what Kevlar armour developers do these days. Same with bullet-proof glass.

 

Not really. An arrow may not pierce an armor, but arrow splinters are still dangerous. They only took into account 1 on 1, as in a shooter vs a knight, but as you can see in the video, almost every arrow splintered, and wood splinters in high speed can be equally lethal, hence the designs in the French breastplate already factored in a lot of possibilities. (Also, its a recreation of a scenario of a famous English-French medieval war), I think it was the "Battle of Agincourt' (my hearing sucks, I know).

Well, there are places to aim for, and if you get lucky... Besides, they used a 160 pound bow (the archer could use 200 pound bow, but he deduced that the average was 160). The first shot didn't struck the armor, but it technically bounced off the lip of the bottom part of the breastplate and slotted itself into the ringmail cover, and pierced through the padding). A lucky shot (but not the shot that the experimenters wanted), but when you got so many arrows, you're gonna get lucky at one point.

The video actually provides more in-depth explanation to the point. They used a longbow, and English longbows aren't used for close quarter combat per se. The distance of 25 metres is "small", but longbows aren't drawn full at that point (explained in another video), and the videos actually show why the French V-shaped bump (I don't know what its called), helps in mitigating the splinters, bouncing, etc. But at that speed, if it hit any parts of the body, the secondary shot (as in the splinters, head, etc) can be lethal.

This is true, but there are also a lot of things that could kill knights, for example arrows dipped in oil, etc, etc. The video was just mainly to point out if arrows did any direct damage to breastplates, and the answer is "not exactly".

Yeap, the first shot somehow went under the lower edge of the plate. That one used a hollowed tip (as in the tip that was not weighted), and they tried to shoot another with a weighted tip but it struck where they wanted (straight at the centre of the breastplate) and not at the chinks in the armour.

 

Even if we consider that a bodkin arrow has 1% chance to kill a fully plate armoured knight, that's still 1 arrow in a hundred killing a fully armoured knight. According to Gesta Henrici (and its pessimistic estimates), there were 5000 English archers at Agincourt. If we assume that a 'lucky shot' accounts for 1% of all arrows shot, that means there would be 50 fully armoured knights downed in every volley. It is unlikely for there to be only just one volley.

Considering also that the accepted culprit for the French defeat was the muddy terrain due to the heavy rain before the battle, that means the archers had a lot more volleys they could throw at the French. Add to the fact that the terrain of Agincourt was actually not flat at all and that the knights would have to abandon their horses anyway once they reach the English archers, it adds even more volleys for the English longbowman, except this time their targets are much closer and still would take time to reach them.

Even if we half the 'lucky shot' chance, that still meant that 25 slowed (and tired) full-plate knights would be downed with each volley. And not all of the knights would be fully plate armoured. Nobody knew how many of them were fully plate armoured, but considering that maille actually refers to chainmail, it could be that the men at arms still used chainmails for that battle as full plate armour were still expensive at that time and they'd likely reuse inherited chainmails or half-plates from their parents or grandparents. And we know that bodkin arrows were designed to penetrate chainmails.

 

Exactly. Known as proof marks, and later there was a whole list of tests for top quality armor, including stuff like muskets, arquebuses, crossbows, bows etc.

Not really x2. To have a dangerous splinter, it nees to have enough penetrative power (kinetic energy) to do any harm. The only theoretically possible damage can be done to eyes, if shot directly from front. However, armorsmiths weren't idiots and the armor was made to withstand strikes from cavalry lances. That is, huge giant badass arrows held in hand. Sooo, helmets were made with geometry that pretty much anything pointy simply glances off with a *ding* sound. As for breastplate, due to larger area it has minor chance for a hit at 90° angle, but the small arrow splinters simply won't have a way to get into the eyes.
Actually, that video, while entertaining, isn't that accurate historically. Iirc, there are other videos dissecting it with proper explanations, but I'm a bit too busy to go diggign through youtube. But a minor point is, that arrows were mostly made from as crap iron as possible (elite "arrows from Sheffield steel" were rare enough to be mentioned specially in documents), while knight armors made from tempered carbon steel of variable thickness. By manipulating thickness from less than one millimeter at unimportant points (like small hand armor digits etc) to above 2 mm at the danger zones (left front side of the helmets, breastplate cenetrs etc. And much, much more when knights went on to transform into bulltetproof cuirassiers) they managed to stay within reasonable wight while providing optimal protection. Armor making was such a business, that having returning customers had much deeper meaning than now.

Lucky? Sure. If a knight stands in front of the archers and waits for a few minutes. That is why I stressed that there were few things that could DIRECTLY kill a knight. You do realize, that wasn't "intended use" of armor, same as now with bulletproof vests you aren't supposed to hand around during firefight.

I have worn my share of armors, from chainmails to coats of plates and proper full plate (that one didn't fit well, since it wasn't mine. I seem to never manage to save up enough money to order a set before price inflation strikes each time). Sure, there are few, ridiculously low chances that something can be lethal. During Albigensian Crusade, knight Simon IV de Montfort, the leader of the forces sieging Toulouse, got headshotted from trebuchet. Shit happens, but that again, isn't normal. The V-shaped pump is actually an early form of gorget, you're welcome.

For the love of most horrible cthonic entities of outer space, please forget the Hollywood "arrows dipped in oil". Nobody did this shit, like ever. Flaming arrows existed, and had a tip like this. With space for something flammable to stick in. It got so horribly shitty aerodynamics that it takes effort to hit a castle. Not to mention a knight who will react with "WTF?!" instead of dying if hit by one of these.


And yeah, that is true that arrows didn't work that well against armor. I'm just explaining that in general, knights didn't really do that much charging into arrow rains. Medieval tactics was a bit different. And also, that the video is not fully well representing how things actually worked.

Wrong statistical approach. Suppose, every arrow has a 1% chance to kill a knight (in reality, much less). It isn't additive like each other arrow is +1% to probability and 100 arrows give 100% to kill a knight. It goes separately, calculating 1% likelihood for each hit individually.

They weren't really shot down at Agincourt either. Most kills were in melee. People forget that archers had sidearms and beings peasants that they were, had no problem mud-wrestling and ganking up to go full gachimuchi on noble sirs.

Dumb chevaliers ran down their own troops there at some point and ignored tactics. As usual, even best armor can't cure idiocy.

 

The test are using modern steel armor instead of 'dirty' made medieval steel armor. Bodkin arrowhead do penetrate breastplate when they hit at good angle however they do would be simply deflected at extreme angle.
Real commonly used medieval armor actually are thinner and more brittle than modern steel so the bodkin arrow do still very effective against them. While it is possible for state of the art craftsman and smith to forge something close to modern steel used in the test they are not what would normal soldiers would've be equipped with.

 

woah! Ai chan with a serious response? Ive seen it before, but its been a minute since then. Furthermore its very logical and well thought out

 

d

That was already factored in, and the armorer spesifically mentioned that they actually went with 0.5% carbon, in their research the average carbon in armor used by people of that era was 0.6%.

They've done a lot of homework to recreate the situations without "modernising" it.

 

Damn Pay to Win Knights!

 

Since I've seen preserved piece in Italy i don't believe they're the same medieval piece of armor. Even if they replicate the steel composition they do not replicate the manufacturing process. While it's true there's plenty preserved example of masterpieces mainly of nobility heirlooms they do not reflect the equipment that were used by common men at the time.

 

Splinters don't need to do penetrative damage to do harm. While the test was a 1 on 1 (1 shooter, 1 armor), they made remarks such as the noise, the condition of the fight, the splints, all these damages that would add up. As a matter of fact, they even pointed to I believe 2-3 arrow shots where if it wasn't for the V-design on the plate, the splinter would have ricochetted off straight to the face or the neck, even if its a "lucky shot". Meaning, the damage of splinters, broken heads flinging off isn't something to be scoffed at. In fact, at the end of the experiment, they even made the same quips when they were talking about how a Jupon over a breastplate actually dealt with the dangers of splinters). The jupon and the breastplate were both French versions that were used.

Heh, a few minutes? I don't know anything about Agincourt, but the video points to the use of the "armor", which was to literally stop arrows, or destroy it. I'm not denying that the armor works, nor am I saying arrows are completely useless. That was the point of the video, to point out if breastplates were of any use, and at least with these testings, they said yes.

and that's the point isn't it? Its not about making it ridiculously low chance (since apparently the French lost that battle), because every shot would have to count. That gorget was a clear example how it helped to redirect the ricochet / bouncing of the arrow. Again, to stress how the armor does what it was intended to do; to stop arrows. Again, the people in the video stressed that with all the secondary effects, a lot of factors had to be counted in (and its not discounting if there were any "lucky shots")

I don't think that's that the video claims to be. They tried to explore around the idea if arrows could punch through a metal armor, and if armor could withstand arrows (they made at least 2 types, hard-encased and non hard encased arrows), and they slapped layers of layers as realisitically as they could, and even went with a jupon. Thye didn't say this is a "definitely, and in their reflection they also mentioned this gives an idea how it would probably looked like. Every English arrows they had, were based on the designs from arrows that were salvaged from "The Mary Rose" shipwrecked, even which they admitted wasn't really the perfect data to rely on. But they made a point about how arrows and metal plates work, and their efforts to try to keep as close as possible (whenever possible) for the experimentation is a well appreciated effort I would say.

For the Battle of Agincourt, the summarized version could be found in the wiki, although i'm sure there are a lot of resources pointing to the actual warfare involved, seeing that (if what I understood from the video) was correct that they based off that era because they had the most data from that era to recreate a "what if" arrow vs plate situation.

 

That's why they said (at least the armorer) said that they tried to recreate it as best as they could, using all the techniques of that time. Those aren't modern day machined, and they even spesifically went to built an armor that has less carbon mix / composition in the metal as opposed to what raw data had.

A side off topic to that, many have claimed to be able to make damascus steel (with modern forging techniques), but none have the authenticity,, right? Let alone re-creating it, at least that's what I understood.