How did the English win at Agincourt ?

[Dan Howard]

2) There are a bunch of contemporary written and artistic sources that describe penetration of plate armour (including helmets and the faulds of cuirasses).

There is only one single unambiguous example of someone getting killed because of an arrow going through plate armour.

There is only one test that attempted to use accurate bow and armour and that is the defense academy warbow trials.

[admin]

There is only one single unambiguous example of someone getting killed because of an arrow going through plate armour.

I suppose ambiguity is a matter of opinion.
Some people (such as Dr. Clifford Rogers over on the MyArmoury thread - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic ... &start=280 ) don't seem to share your view about the abiguity of the examples. I have to say that given the balance of evidence (various 'ambigious' examples of plate penetration in text and art and Royal decrees specifying arrows to have hardened steel heads), I don't think that I agree with you either.
I don't think that plate penetration by longbow arrows would be common, but common enough for Edward III, Henry IV and Henry V to specify that arrowheads should consist of hardened steel. I think it has been pretty consistently demonstrated now that longbow arrows with even mediocre heads can go through the grades and thicknesses of steel that covered most knights' arms and legs with some regularity at close range (it's not all about breastplates and helmets). Not to mention things like aventails and voiders of course.

[bigdummy]

Much as it pains me to do so, I think I have to agree with Dan.

I also don't agree that the Mike Loades test was biased in favor of the armor as you seem to do. Maybe there are some factors leaning against the arrow, but I don't know that there aren't also equivalent factors against the armor. I don't know the carbon content of the steel or how thick it is for example. Or the velocity or weight of the arrow. My assumption is that it was as close to a fair test as one can find online right now.

This longbow vs. armor debate is frankly, ridiculous to me. The only thing which will settle it is more realistic testing, but it will still be an endless debate. If it turns out that a 140 lb bow can't pierce typical armor of the day, then the longbow people will insist that the average draw weight was 200 lbs.... sparking an endless side debate about the weapons on the Mary Rose If it turns out that it can, the armor people will insist that the armor has to be tempered, or thicker, or supported differently and so on... sparking an endless side debate about the quality and origin of armor in the French entourage. It's been going on for more than a decade already and there doesn't seem to be much intellectual honesty in the debate, people are invested in it so emotionally. Which I don't, frankly, understand. Wouldn't it be better to actually find out what happened and how things really were?

BD

[admin]

So why do you think 3 kings of England went to the effort of specifying that arrowheads should be made of hardened steel? You don't need a harder arrowhead to penetrate mail, or gambesons, or horses. Breatplates were tested with crossbows, ergo it was expected that arrows could penetrate some plate armour, otherwise the test does not demonstrate quality!

Remember, we are not only talking about breastplates and helmets. We know that plate armour varied a huge amount at this period, in terms of:
- Coverage
- Form
- Material (some iron, some low carbon steel, some high carbon steel, some heat treated)
- Thickness (some surviving pieces, especially for the limbs, are very thin)

Youtube is full of videos of longbow arrows making holes in steel plates of various sorts. Are you asserting that all armour in c.1415 was made of better quality material and/or thickness? I think you would be surprised to handle some original medieval armour and see how thin some pieces are.

[bigdummy]

No I'm not saying that at all - the debate has always been if Longbows could punch through the best armor of the day, and if so at what range.

Because it seems like it's really a debate of whether Longbows >= Armor.

I suspect from everything I've read that the best quality armor, like what Jehan le Meingre was wearing, was very hard to puncture. Otherwise, why wear it? It wasn't like the 100 years war was in it's first year, they knew what longbows were. But that doesn't equate with the argument that all armor of the period could defeat all longbows at any range.

FWIW i also think the best quality armor from this period was good (if not 100% perfect) protection against the arquebus and the heavy crossbow too.

I also think it was not a complete mystery how to get the 'good stuff', any more than it is a mystery today which brands of cars are good.

But I don't think I have enough data yet to know for sure. Some really systematic testing needs to be done, with experts from both the armor and the bow side of the fence, make some very realistic armor in a range of qualities, and use some real longbows shot by skilled and experienced archers of varied draw-strengths and at various distances. And then we'll know more, right?

BD

[bigdummy]

Youtube is full of videos of longbow arrows making holes in steel plates of various sorts. Are you asserting that all armour in c.1415 was made of better quality material and/or thickness? I think you would be surprised to handle some original medieval armour and see how thin some pieces are.

I think this is because cheap pieces of sheet metal and crappy re-enactor armor are a lot more common today than good quality armor... and though they are still pretty rare, there are a lot more people around with good quality longbows willing to shoot them at stuff than with good quality armor willing to let it get shot (and dented and / or holed)

BD

[admin]

No I'm not saying that at all - the debate has always been if Longbows could punch through the best armor of the day, and if so at what range.

That is not Dan's assertion, so you are not agreeing with Dan.
Dan's assertion is that arrows hardly ever penetrated any plate armour at all, of any quality, even at point blank range (which is the range that a lot of arrows apparently got shot at Poitiers and Agincourt and perhaps Crecy). Despite Kings of England requiring arrowheads to be made of hardened steel (why?) and despite references to plates being pierced by arrows in period texts and art, and despite breastplates being 'proofed' to show they were arrow proof.

I suspect from everything I've read that the best quality armor, like what Boucicault was wearing, was very hard to puncture. Otherwise, why wear it?

Yes, I agree. Conversely, if less expensive/iron plate armour could also do the same thing, then why buy the more expensive/steel stuff?

What I am asserting is that I think the evidence is starting to stack up that actually lesser quality plates (on poorer men-at-arms for example) and thinner plates (on limbs for example) probably were pierced with some regularity. Enough regularity to mean that at least 3 Kings of England thought it worthwhile making sure that arrowheads were of hardened steel.

[janner]

Its' interesting how Clifford's view of warbows has developed over the years. Now if only he would give up the idea of military revolutions

I believe a full and rigorous test of arrow v. armour has yet to be done (or at least then published in a peer reviewed journal).

This would require bows of various draw weights to be loosing several types of arrow at different ranges against synthetic flesh/bone targets wearing the various forms of armour of the day, i.e. not just an arrow blown at a steel breast plate.

The test would need to measure both penetration and concussive effect. Any contributions to my research fund for this will be gratefully received by paypal. I reckon about 200K should crack it

[admin]

Youtube is full of videos of longbow arrows making holes in steel plates of various sorts. Are you asserting that all armour in c.1415 was made of better quality material and/or thickness? I think you would be surprised to handle some original medieval armour and see how thin some pieces are.

I think this is because cheap pieces of sheet metal and crappy re-enactor armor are a lot more common today than good quality armor... and though they are still pretty rare, there are a lot more people around with good quality longbows willing to shoot them at stuff than with good quality armor willing to let it get shot (and dented and / or holed)

You've missed the important bit - do you realise how thin a lot of original armour is? A lot of 're-enactor armor' is actually thicker than the original stuff and a lot of these tests have been done against heat treated carbon steel, when a lot of armour in 1415 was certainly not heat treated carbon steel. In many cases these tests have been done against the very best that early-15thC technology might have had to offer. Now think of all the men-at-arms, out of 10,000, at Aginourt who may not have been wearing armour like Boucicaut could afford.... Not everyone today drives Aston Martin and Bentleys do they?

[bigdummy]

No but that level of cost in armor has more to do with gold leaf and engraving than it does with protection. I have a lot of data on the costs of armor and while expensive, it wasn't that much that the typical knight or even burgher, or even in some cases peasant couldn't afford it. Proofed armor was within the annual income of the average mid-range Polish peasant (so called 'yokel') in the late 15th Century for example.

So I think it's more like a BMW, or a Lexus or whatever your preferred mid range good quality car brand is, which not exactly common, aren't exactly rare either. The warhorse is actually typically much more expensive than the armor in this period.

However I don't think everyone had very good armor, not everyone who may end up having to fight wants to spend 90% of their discretionary income on armor, and certainly much cheaper munitions armor would not protect against a weapon like a longbow at very close range. And I already stated i agree with you that some limb armor even on nice harnesses, and probably back armor, could be pierced at very close range.

But while we both know that longbows were used up close, their main use was at some distance, as you say the spikes may have been a crucial element to keeping cavalry away from the longbowmen, just like the war-wagon appears to have been a crucial element to keeping cavalry (including Steppe horse-archers) away from crossbowmen in Central Europe, and the pike in Switzerland (and later, everywhere).

I guess the next question is, what was the primary use of the longbow in battle, how often / valuable was it for sieges, for open field battles, for close ambushes, and for up-close shock warfare. My understanding has always been that the principle mode of use is that so-called "clout shooting", i.e. area shooting at what amounts to indirect range. Can a longbow pierce good or decent quality armor at that range ? I'm not sure (and yes, I do know the thicknesses I have read Alan Wiliams in depth).

With all respect due to Dr. Clifford Rogers, I don't think his opinion is the final word on the debate

BD

[admin]

No but that level of cost in armor has more to do with gold leaf and engraving than it does with protection.

Not only, and you know it. The text sources at this date are quite specific about differentiating between iron and steel.

However I don't think everyone had very good armor, not everyone who may end up having to fight wants to spend 90% of their discretionary income on armor, and certainly much cheaper munitions armor would not protect against a weapon like a longbow at very close range. And I already stated i agree with you that some limb armor even on nice harnesses, and probably back armor, could be pierced at very close range.

Then you agree with me, not Dan.

My understanding has always been that the principle mode of use is that so-called "clout shooting", i.e. area shooting at what amounts to indirect range. Can a longbow pierce good or decent quality armor at that range ?

I suspect not - especially because arrows coming downwards are most likely to hit helmets, shoulders and deflective shapes. However, we don't *really* know exactly how English archers were used in battles, except for in the broadest sense. We know that they sometimes had archery 'duels' at extreme range with other bodies of archers. However the sources around Poitier and Agincourt in particular seem to emphasise the archers pouring arrows into the flanks of the French infantry at close range. My assertion is that it is this which is the important bit.

With all respect due to Dr. Clifford Rogers, I don't think his opinion is the final word on the debate

Nobody's is. But he does present some good evidence.

[bigdummy]

No but that level of cost in armor has more to do with gold leaf and engraving than it does with protection.

Not only, and you know it. The text sources at this date are quite specific about differentiating between iron and steel.

What I am saying is, from the figures I've seen for Poland and Prussia anyway, the difference in the cost of armor, including imported Milanese harness, that was proofed vs. not proofed was not nearly as high as the difference between fancy parade armor or lordly armor of exquisite artistic qualities.

For example, some period records from Poland in the early 15th Century (near the time of the Battle of Grunwald) indicate the cost to equip two mounted crossbowmen (who would be armored in some fashion) at 22 Grivna, which is roughly the same as a Mark or 12 ounces of silver at that time (this is a fluctuating value but that is about average in the period). The cost of equipping a lancer is 30 Grivna. But a gilded and etched harness for a Polish magnate cost over 1400 florins, and I've seen prices for warhorses as high as 3000 florins or more.

Some other prices I found

A sheep, 56 dinari
Bushel of wheat 84 dinari
Sword 20 Kreuzer (1/2 a Mark)
Crossbow (not sure what specific type) 1 Mark / 40 Kreuzer
Coat of plates (platendienst) 12 Kreuzer
Cuirass with pauldrons, 39 Kreuzer
Mail Haubergeon 2-7 Marks
‘special’ Haubergeon (possibly tempered or fine links) 10 marks
Half-Armor ‘of Proof’ 90 Kreuzer (a little more than 2 marks)
Milanese Harness 4 Florins
Milanese Harness ‘of Proof*’ 7 Florins, 4 Kreuzer

All of these are well within the monthly pay of a typical mercenary lancer.

My sources are:

“History of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages”, Johannes Janssen
Uzbrojenie w Polsce średniowiecznej 1350-1450, “Armaments in Medieval Poland 1350-1450”, Andrzej Nadolski, Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej, (1990), page 471

In the latter book, interestingly, the author claims that they found two helmets in Poland (Masovia) the 1990's which appear to have been pierced by crossbow bolts or arrows, both in the face plate, one dating from the 14th Century and one from the 13th.

They didn't say what kind, or how thick or anything.

BD

* this doesn't indicate which kind of proof, of the two types Alan Williams mentions

[admin]

Nice to see you're adding to our evidence of plate penetration .

So, what's your theory about the repeated royal decrees to have hardened steel heads?

[bigdummy]

It would seem logical to assume that they worked better. Why do you think thy had to keep issuing decrees?

[Dan Howard]

Nice to see you're adding to our evidence of plate penetration .

Maybe. Even that example is a propaganda piece written for Henry V

So, what's your theory about the repeated royal decrees to have hardened steel heads?

Even mail needs a hardened head to have a chance of being compromised.

[admin]

Even mail needs a hardened head to have a chance of being compromised.

How so?
Those long thin bodkins you get in the 13thC poke right through most European mail rings. Mail is compromised by being stretched and burst IMO, not by the iron wire being penetrated.
Incidentally some mail was made of steel and heat treated, so presumably that was seen as desirable if you could afford it. That suggests the standard iron stuff could be compromised, otherwise there is little point in wasting steel and bothering to heat treat it.

[admin]

Nice to see you're adding to our evidence of plate penetration .

Maybe. Even that example is a propaganda piece written for Henry V

Out of interest Dan, how do you think so many French men-at-arms were overcome at Agincourt with such bizarrely low casualties on the English side? According to some reckoning we're talking about 10,000 French men-at-arms vs. 1000 English men-at-arms, of which perhaps 5,000 French men-at-arms actually got to fight. What effect do you think the archers did have with their arrows?

Why do you suppose that the French later recruited Lombard heavy cavalry rather than using their own?

[Thearos]

Why do you suppose that the French later recruited Lombard heavy cavalry rather than using their own?

Am I right that the Milanese suits of armour were longbow proof ? (I remember reading this in Oakeshotte's little book "A Knight and his weapons', or may "... armour", and perhaps in Juliet Barker, Conquest-- about the battle of Verneuil ?)

[admin]

That is modern interpretation. What we do know is that for some reason the French recruited Northern Italian cavalry, probably with barded horses, and that they did not get shot to pieces by the English archers (they weren't particularly effective otherwise though).

The question then begs to be asked - why did the French recruit Northern Italian heavy cavalry? Presumably they thought the great expense was worth it, because they had a problem of some kind. What was the problem? Not longbows?

[Dan Howard]

Even mail needs a hardened head to have a chance of being compromised.

How so?
Those long thin bodkins you get in the 13thC poke right through most European mail rings.

That's definitely not true. There are very few examples of mail from any period with links large enough for a bodkin to pass straight through and most of those are intended to be layered with another type of armour (padeed jack, COP, brigandnes, etc) not worn on their own.