Medieval Mythbusting - Arrows vs. Armour

[AlexanderA]

Remember that plate armor was a relatively late development. Its heyday was only about 300 years, c. 1375 - c. 1675. And even during its heyday, it was mostly used to cover the most vital parts of the body. (Complete head-to-toe armor was only for the super-rich, and was used mostly for parades and jousting tournaments.) Basic armor was still chain mail, which could be penetrated by longbow arrows.

 

[Jim Watson]

Not to mention the brigandine and other economy models.

 

[Ryden]

A very interesting point is the difference the gambeson did when worn over the armour, I wonder if it would have prevented an arrow to penetrate the maille

 

[hso]

Maybe the archers concentrated

Not in warfare. They fired in mass raining great numbers of arrows upon their enemies. Every one was "To whom it may concern, " like artillery. Precision was possible, but not practical until near contact close.

 

[22-rimfire]

Have to say that was an interesting video. I assumed before watching that steel tipped arrows from heavy war bows would penetrate armor. Armor today on tanks use the same approach by deflecting rounds.

 

[Ryden]

Not in warfare. They fired in mass raining great numbers of arrows upon their enemies. Every one was "To whom it may concern, " like artillery. Precision was possible, but not practical until near contact close.

But at Agincourt they were shooting straight on as can clearly be seen from illustrations not "raining death from above". That means they were pretty close, and I have a hard time thinking they wouldn't aim at a target that's clear before them.

Another classic element in the myth of Agincourt has the English archers shooting high up into the air at long range, so that they drop the arrows down their enemies heads from above. However, eyewitness accounts of the battle tell us that the English shooting was so thick ththat the French feared that the sights and the sides of their visors would be pierced, not the tops of their heads
http://menatarmshyw.canalblog.com/archives/2018/02/25/36174665.html

I was a machine gunner in the army and aiming at a known enemy is a hard habit to get rid of.
As the Sgt frequently put it, "It's not your blessed job to kill the motherloving son of a ditch with a hundred bullets, it's to bless all the b*ds and spread happiness and joy to the lot of the motherloving syphilitic Prussian gherkins"
Interpret the euphemism from your own memories.

Archers was more akin to artillery than snipers, but when a clear target appears you aim for it so I think that in this battle at least there were aimed shots.

I found some interesting facts at http://stortford-archers.org.uk/physics-of-medieval-archery/, how many can shoot 80 arrows in 8 minutes with a 180 lb bow today?

 

[theotherwaldo]

My understanding is that massed archery and massed musketry are more similar to crew-serviced machine guns, with just a bit of influence from the smaller mortars and field guns.
The target is engaged as a mass rether than as individuals - unless someone in the enemy is stupid enough to make himself into a notable target... .

 

[hso]

clearly be seen from illustrations

You'd have to call any illustration into question considering there was no photography making any representation artistic in nature. Archers in warfare were used en-mass until the targets got too close for volley. Then they'd be expected to shoot at individuals (or more likely withdraw to avoid being crushed and cut to ribbons).

 

[CapnMac]

Both the French and British chronicles tell us that thre was significant long-range archery engagement.
The English launched at extreme range to prevent the French archers from setting up on the flanks.
The English also used long range archery to funnel French Foot tow the crowded center, rather than spread out the van.

French archers attempted to split the English foot more than once, in an attempt to isolate the English horse

The French were somewhat hindered in that, due to the wet, they had to largely rely on crossbows.

Now, in the clutch of it, when the English and French fronts met, the archers were able to rake the length of the French flank (being in a narrow valley, in wet conditions, the mounted French were in a line, much longer than wide; on the first or second ranks were able to engage the enemy, the rest were vulnerable from the sides to lateral attacks (and from the haste by which the French had elevated people to mounted status, so they had incomplete armor at best).

 

[Ryden]

My understanding is that massed archery and massed musketry are more similar to crew-serviced machine guns

Yes, that is a better simile than artillery, that'd be things like ballistas or siege crossbows

You'd have to call any illustration into question considering there was no photography making any representation artistic in nature. Archers in warfare were used en-mass until the targets got too close for volley. Then they'd be expected to shoot at individuals (or more likely withdraw to avoid being crushed and cut to ribbons).

Not necessarily, medieval illustrations can be supprisingly accurate about such things if contemporary , and in this case they are backed up by eyewitness accounts.

 

[Ryden]

Both the French and British chronicles tell us that thre was significant long-range archery engagement.
/.../
Now, in the clutch of it, when the English and French fronts met, the archers were able to rake the length of the French flank (being in a narrow valley, in wet conditions, the mounted French were in a line, much longer than wide;

Yes, at the preliminary stages there was long range indirect "fire", but once engaged proper the terrain allowed the English to deploy their archers at a range where they'd normally would have been much to close for comfort. This is decisive to the outcome.

A most interesting battle and I don't think we really disagree about what happened.
But the tests are valid, because there were direct shots fired, for the first time a large number of archers wrere deployed at close range. I think simply because they had no alternative. The French had concentrated their forces in the middle of the valley and when they attacked it let the English (who had deployed all the way to the woods on both sides) to make a pincer movement and more or less surround the french
It eventually made a lot of changes in strategy, tactics and armour.

 

[lemaymiami]

The other major factor in the outcome of the battle was that along with the wet muddy field to contend with the french armor was hindered by their own crowding on the narrow field of battle... On better terrain the horse might have done the usual - penetrating the lines of foot and archers - then slaughtered them as they fell back then broke... The descriptions of Agincourt by Bernard Cornwell (although fiction -are pretty solidly based on thorough research by historians and contemporary accounts...) of that battle are just fascinating... It encouraged me to read up on that period whenever I came across something. The actual combat of that time was not at all as it's portrayed in movies... or other entertainments.