In general, at least at the moment, Tod's comments are fairly civil, and constructive. Which is a fair blessing online. So it's less a trench walk and more a scenic walk in a wooded gully :p
Tod: "Medieval Smiths! Assemble!" Joe: "You have my bow." Will: " You have my arrows." Kevin: " You have my armour." Chrissi: " You have my paddings." Tobias: " You have my scrolls." Tod: " Let's (after 30 seconds loading crossbow) end this rightly." (to be continue)
@@johnmccallum9106 they also don't have armour or paddings, etc. But that's just not the point here. Besides... who says crossbows cannot have pommels in the first place?! If you want a pommel on your crossbow, there's nothing preventing you from adding one.
It's amazing that first, people who would have never done any of the work and training and expense to do your test are so quick to criticize, and second, that you took the time to answer the better criticisms in full. - Thank you again for all of your work and attention to detail. You entertain and educate us all.
Tod, the channel is amazing, specially for me, a fan of the subject. Thanks for the dedication and for the great work! Been in a distant country with no Medieval history (Brazil), it is a great pleasure to find a channel such as yours. Keep up the great work! Cheers!
14:33 Sounds awesome! I know you said your goal wasn't to pierce the armor, but I'd love a video where that was the objective. Either by using different points, different bows, or even different weapons! Seems like it'd be awesome, (if not expensive to destroy a piece of plate).
i really respect that you a care enough to reply to comments. I think a lot of posters see longbows in a vacuum. One archer, one knight.That's ignoring the effects of the massed fire of hundreds of long bow men. Armor has gaps, different qualities, and so if you are facing an opponent shooting bunches of arrows at you, your forces are likely to in for a world of hurt.
Sheesh - folks really were not paying any attention to the video at all..... you disclaimer-ed almost all of those questions. REALLY looking forward to the following up videos - of which thier must be soo many qued up already - sounds like a long running series to me - excellent! You folks have the best test(s) going - keep it up - FOR SCIENCE!
Dear Tod (and crew), in the web wide world of hysteria, half-facts and hypocrisy and Clickbaiting, you stand as a rock of reason, common sense and hard work. Thank you for all your efforts.
Well, just to give some medieval tactics to put this in perspective. 1) Archers were drawn up in mostly long thin ranks of skirmishers, allowing for the largest amounts of archers to fire at the same time and limit the size of the ranks for return fire. 2) The longbows had some of the greatest range at the time and the first volleys were fired upwards for additional range and velocity, the idea was quantity as well as accuracy. 3) Archers would essentially enfilade fire, the ones on the right shooting at a leftward angle, the one on the left at a right angle and the center shot straight. They did this to maximize the chance of finding weaknesses in armor and decrease shield effectiveness as it couldn't cover three directions at once. 4) In the case of a cavalry charge (which was the worse thing for archers to be against) the archers would aim at the front ranks, particularly the horses. Heavy cavalry used tight grouped formations for force of impact, so targeting the front line horses meant that any that went down would trip ranks behind them. 5) Momentum and force have to be considered here, the charging knights were building momentum for the attack, the arrows had a lot of impact power in the opposite direction. Much like a beetle hitting a car widow as your driving, it can amplify the impact and create enough force to knock the knight off the horse. The weight of the plate armor and impact on the ground would often severely hamper the ability to get up and therefore be easy to finish off for unencumbered footmen. There are a fair few more points I could make but suffice to say, the longbowmen did allow the victory at Agincourt. There is some of mine, just watched that other episode
Interviewer: "Big question, this is the one I always ask you medievalists. You got an arrow like this. A thick shafted, bodkin tipped arrow like this, can it punch through plate armour?" Toby Capwell: ........ Not really... But it doesn't matter. If you... One of the things I've been asking myself in the last couple of days as I've been thinking more about this is "Did Henry V do the math?" Because if you actually sit down and start doing a few calculations, there's a very, very strange effect that happens, and you find that the longbow doesn't actually have to be that effective against armour on this scale. The numbers really stack up in the English favor. If Henry's sitting down and does the figures, It's very clear that even if the archers are only shooting 4 arrows a minute, and that's slow. That's taking your time. That's taking your cup of tea and biscuits between shots. You can still kill a 1000 French knights before they've got anywhere near your lines. So the French knights gallop into this attack. Cross this difficult field. Horses stumbling on the recently ploughed field in the thick mud. They are attacked by a swarm of arrows. The accounts of English archers often described the arrows like driving snow. They use atmospheric sort of analogies to give a sense of what it felt like. It says that the English shooting was so thick, it made the advancing French knights bow their heads. And that's a very important point because you don't bow your head when stuff is dropping down out of the sky at you. You bow your head when its hitting you straight in the face. So all of this stuff about archers shooting high up into the air, at high elevation? Rubbish. It never happened. They didn't do it. All of this is straight on shooting. Very nasty business. You've got 6000 guys shooting en masse. If you shoot enough of those arrows, some of them are going to find the weak points, some of them are going to find the unprotected points, and very few, but some, are going to make the armour fail. But again, even if only 1 in 100 shots kills somebody, and even if only 1 in 75 arrows causes significant injury. I mean that's not a very good rate of success, but even if you have a very poor rate of success, you've shot 144,000 arrows in less than 10 minutes? That stacks up. And thats one of the... I think the numbers is one of the things that gave Henry a lot of confidence in this battle.
There's a battle during the battle of the roses where the archers on both side open the battle by shooting volleys at each other. Of course, these archers weren't heavily armored. A strong wind blew unfavorably for one side. Each time, their arrows landed short. The other side laughed and mocked, and then returned fire. This went on for a while. What's the best way to achieve maximum distance in such a case? Also, let's say the wind didn't blow, whats the best way to achieve maximum distance against unarmored targets using mass volleys in such a way that you remain out of range?
The way the arrows deflected off the plate armour to possible go for the neck or other unprotected areas was a surprise and shocking to me. The solution of the 'V' on the breastplate was very simple and effective, a great peice of practical education. Thank you
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but here's another point to consider. You folks were shooting a fairly flat trajectory straight at the front of the armor. A rain of arrows dropping from above would perform differently. Perhaps not any better, but no doubt differently. Maybe they'd be more likely to slip down behind the plates and only have the soft armor to penetrate.
In the original video they mention that the current opinion of historians based on the surviving written accounts and surviving art work, that archers in a field battle would position themselves as close to the enemy as is reasonable for their own after and shoot their arrows straight on as is possible while in formation. Historians speculate that this was done to impart maximum impact force on target, seeing as an arrow will be moving the fastest when it leaves the bow.
We know in the age of sailing warfare secondary fragmentation was considered a major danger. Even a small cannon ball would cause blinding splinters. Something like an 18pdr ball could make splinters as long as your arm. Even today explosives can cause rocks, trees, building rubble to move fast enough to kill.
Here's a question for you. After your last test, the breastplate was somewhat beat up. A bunch of big, deep dents. And in a real fight, a knight may have his shield up to catch some of the arrows -- but he is also worried about sword, mace, or spear strikes to his armor as well. When he gets back to camp, his armor all dented, I assume there's some sort of repairs he could do on the spot, so that he's ready to fight again the next day; and that these repairs aren't as solid as those he could make if he took his armor to a smithy back in the city. If that's all true -- what happens if he's struck by an arrow during a battle before he's had a chance to go back to town? You guys were basically working with a brand new suit of armor -- what if the deflecting curve has been flattened by a mace strike, so the arrow catches the armor on a flat surface; or perhaps the knight or his page hammered the curve back, but fatigued the metal, making it easier for an arrow to pierce it?
Thank you, You have answered a lot of historic questions, still more to go but no doubt you will answer more. Thanks for all the work, it is no easy task.
Curious if the number of arrows played a role. That is, many of the initial arrows deflected off the plate, but some dimpled the armour. If subsequent arrows hit the dimple, much more of the energy is available to penetrate the plate. This of course begs the question of how often an arrow would strike in the same spot at 50m.
love it. awesome first vid. great follow up. i think a lot of people like myself were disappointed by how poorly the english longbow performed and were looking for an excuse. i've always though bows were the best weapons and i was shocked at how well the armour performed under realistic attack. I also thought the sword was hands down the coolest weapon until i saw the spears vs swords vid on another channel. swords still look and fight cooler, but they aren't the best weapon in a fight for me any more. whats worse, is a complete novice could learn enough with a spear in a week to beat a swordsman with years experience. goddamn you guys for the great work you do. damn you all.
I am a blacksmith and just thought that I'd let you know, air cooling of steel in not annealing, its normalizing. Annealing is making a piece of steel dead soft by bringing the work piece to a critical heat (a little bit hotter than cherry red) and then burying it in a substantial amount of wood ash. There are other substances to bury the piece in but I've found wood ash to work the best with the least complications. Normalizing is to make a work piece have a finer tougher grain structure. Not to mention some of today's steels will air harden, but that's not "really" related to the discussion at hand. Although shear steel will air harden a bit. It certainly doesn't soften the steel so one can dress it with a file efficiently. That's what annealing is for.
And ten months later I'm back. One thing I forgot to mention was that steel was a scarce commodity and hard to make. You would put thin sheets of wrought iron into a stone box with charcoal and chared bone and leather ground up finely in a layer between these thin sheets. Then you would put the lid on the stone box and seal it with a refractory clay so no oxygen could get in. Then you would put the box in a very hot fire and cook the contents for a certain amount of time depending on the thickness of the wrought iron sheets. When they were done and the contents were cool they were very thin sheets of steel. Its case hardening to the point where the iron has hopefully completely turned to steel. This was called blister steel. The next step is take all the sheets of steel and forge weld them together into a single billet. Then cut it in half and forge weld the pieces again and its easier to cut the billet into several pieces and forge weld them into a single billet. This is called shear steel. The reason they made steel this way was that the blister steel rarely turned to steel all the way through in all places. Also to save money and and make a fuller billet they would put sheets of wrought iron between some or all of the sheets of steel depending on the end customer and what you're making with the shear steel, things things like shears to cut hair or wool off a sheep. The wrought iron mixed with the steel makes for a tougher steel, but is so Labor intensive that you wouldn't use it in one use items arrow heads. It would become part of edge tools like knives, axes and swords. Some tools only the cutting edge would be of steel. Any more and ill have written a treatise of Middle ages blacksmithing.
Have you thought about the quality of your steel? Have you thought about the presence of impurities e.g. Sulphur. This can cause a dramatic decrease in the impact strength of steel. I suspect the steel you used in the armour was of very high quality compared to that available in medieval times. Excellent video.
The blunt force trauma thing isn't really anything to worry about assuming it is well built. Using the gun as an example, the impact of a bullet is very similar to the recoil the shooter feels when you spread out the pressure over a similar area, so if you increase the area even more, you'll feel even less blunt force trauma than the shooter felt.
Another point is that of the Knights shield. Yes, it would have protected against arrows, but, if the arrow were to penetrate the shield and remain in it eventually the shield would have to be discarded as it becomes too cumbersome with the many arrows stuck in it.. If many hundreds of shields are strewn across the battle field, it would hinder the manoeuvre of the attackers.... In the real world of charging cavalry, the horse is by far the more important target. Even without a rider it could wreak havoc. We know the horses were armoured to a degree, but hits on the legs which could never be protected would bring it down. The accuracy of these longbowmen should not be under estimated. Perhaps the longbowmen were deployed into light and heavy artillery? Some with 200lb bows, some with more accurate 100lb bows for trying to hit the forelegs of the horses. The fact that body armour was abandoned as fire arms were introduced, proves that armour was only used whilst it was still effective.
I have a question. With archers at the back of the army, wouldn't the shots have dropped in at a steep angle? How would that have effected its performance?
In regards to longbow shooting style, I was just reading about the Mary Rose here: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-22625898 It says of a particular skeleton that "the middle of his spine is twisted, a feature often seen in archers of the time."
Is there a possibility that a shorter thicker quarrel from a heavy crossbow could focus the energy more at a point and penetrate better? At that distance a seem to recall that the can pound about the same energy. Sorry if you've already answered this question. I just recently found your excellent channel. EDIT: And silly me make a comment 2/3 through the video. Solly.
In ago court The archers shot from The sides protect ed by trees. On The open right in front was other person el, IF you do correct shoot The armor from different angle on The sides, and you see it Will penetrate, 5000 arrow in same time, 6 times a minute, so The arrow nr 6 got direkt side angle as The first 45
"When the arrows did not get through armor, how did the English win at Agincourt?" - Well, the English won at Agincourt in the melee when encircling the French battle line, which had surged into the center to avoid the arrow fire from the flanks and smash the English center in a kind of Cannae fashion, with the archers being the flanking force. And it is, to my knowledge, mentioned that the archers actually stopped shooting and picked up melee weapons to join the fray... so the arrows actually did not need to go through armor to create a scenario which other armies would win against a superior force with without archers. The longbow created a particular battlefield condition which would have been essential even if the longbow had been unable to kill a single knight here, simply by battering them and supposedly making their wings kinda force inward. Same with Henry's position in the center... suspiciously the same thing Hannibal did because in such a fight the critical point is in the center, the French knew it because they wanted to smash it, the English knew it. And no, not saying the longbow was ineffective, but in at least two of the three famous English victories stuff happened on the battlefield that changed the dynamics and had nothing to do with archery. At Poitiers English cavalry charging the rear of the French vanguard caused a mass rout sweeping away the second French main line. Arguably at Crecy and Poitiers the fact the English sat on a hill behind field fortifications also already was a big chunk of forcing the French into a disadvantaged position as they charged uphill. Battles are usually more complex than the gear everyone was using.
you get out of it what you put in. if the initial energy to release the shot doesn't pull you off your feet, it won't pull the other guy off his feet either
I wonder what results you guys would get had you the budget to dress a dozen or so dummies in full armor and had 20 or so bowmen that could shoot at them. Still that previous video did make me subscribe so thanks for the quality content :-)
Even with crossbow you can't aim that well from a distance, let alone with heavy bow because the strain is so big that it's impossible to hold it for long - like in the films or animations.
The horses probably were not as well armored as their riders. If your mount was hit, then as a knight, you might take a very hard fall. In this battle, that would have been into the swamp.
What about to disable the cavalry, maybe the archers were used to slow down or kill the horses so that they had to travel on foot and lost the ability to rout them
I think you need to do research on the skeletons of ancient bowmen. I feel the skeletons can give you a better idea of what they where using for bows rather than the remains of a single bow. Do an ex ray of your boy Joe. Compare the bend of his bones & the size of his ligement attachments to the skeletons.
@Christian Changer Mike Loades made a video a few years back where he tested a warbow against a historical gambeson, it was pretty good but Tod’s video is definitely better.
Hey Todd, Thanks for mentioning me. Wonderful video again, I think you have addressed everything in a very accurare and professional way. I watched this video while having pizza. I don't know why I told you this last piece of information but hey. Keep it up!
Now i have the memory of a neopolitan restaurant resurrected in my mind, the craving for fresh sauce & herbs with melted cheese made the previous day.... We have it all in Wisconsin.
Just wanted to say that I appreciate how unique your channel is. Your passion is fantastic, and I learn a heck of a lot every time I watch. Your production quality is fantastic these days too. Keep up the great work mate!
@@peter4210 thirded, and very much hoping the videos pull enough money to allow for this to become a series. I'd love to see a sort of hand made mythbusters style with professionally done weapons and armor in various situations.
@@SwadianKnight101 given he pulled like 2 million views, I'm assuming that the funding should take care of itself. I'm thinking it is more scheduling both the time to do said videos/time for the professionals to manage to get around to it at the same time and to ensure he puts out the videos slowly enough to not drive off the hype. It sucks, but better to do it slow and steady for a long time than burst through a quick run of epic vids that result in it fizzling as people stop tuning in every time
One thing that the tests failed to address was that during the battle of Agincourt many of the English archers were very ill from dysentery, so much so that reports stated that many cut away the backs of their trousers to save time. In future experiments I suggest that you force feed Joe several curries/baked beans/Newcastle Brown Ale and laxatives before the experiment takes place. This should replicate the effects on the English archers at the time of battle, an effect which is known in modern Britain as "Sunday mornings."
@Frankthetank123098 especially if they stick the spare arrows in the 'soil' as was often done on battlefields. Biological weapons at their finest! Now we know why many knights would die of wound infections.
@@Tennouseijin "Francois, why is your magnificently gilded breastplate turning brown? I did not see you fall into the mud." "What? No, Gilbert it was all those English arrows that kept hitting my...... Oh! Those @&%$£&!:$!!!!!"
This explains the English victory. The French knights lifted their visors so they could clutch their noses. Also, when the front line tried to back away from the stench, they'll have caused confusion and worsened the press. Some may even have fainted. What a way to go!
@@erikjarandson5458 And any knights who would try to put fabric etc. inside their helmets like a gas mask to block the stench, would have reduced their vision and breathing even further.
I haven't done anything to contribute to this discussion, other than sharing the video and praising it as one of the best researched test videos on arrows and armour. This response to comments furthers the depth that the team has gone through to respect the historical authenticity that we know of. Well done.
I feel like a lot of people were taking this as "it would be cool to see a longbow arrow pierce a breastplate" instead of "here is a case study with relatively accurate gear". Frankly, I find the null results FAR more interesting, as it leads to deeper questions about tactics, psychology, etc
i mean weve been plinking arrows at good breastplates all over the net, lindybeige filmed an armourer showing his breastplate being hit with a 150l bow as well and it did bugger all. hence why, s i said in the video comments, i am FAR more interested in testing the smaller but still essential armour pieces, cuisses, helmets and helmet visors, aventails, voiders. the breastplate wont likely fail but those areas failing or holding up is likely where most of the wounds would be sustained
@@elgostine This is a late comment..but! The tactical advantage of raining arrows on an advancing enemy is probably huge. The knights that are walking over the battlefield have to close their visors and look down to mitigate the risk of getting an arrow in a less protected part of the helmet. The sound of swarms of arrows hitting you and the rest of your line would be loud. To all that we can add the slippery and wet conditions at Agincourt. Its easy to think of something could and would go wrong. Keeping in formation without hearing commands or seeing exactly what is happening would be very hard indeed. And if you and your men manage to close with the enemy line you have been walking all that way with a closed visor. Chances are that you all will at the very least be exhausted.
All valid points, I didn't have many of the concerns some others seem to have had but appreciate the greater insight into the decisions made. Looking forward to the next in the series.
100% correct! Everything Tod says in this video, he said in the first one. It's as if the people who were complaining didn't pay attention the first time. Of course, they probably won't pay attention this time either. :(
Seems to be an internet thing, people agitating themselves over something they did not read/listen to in it's entirety. Pretty common, but you are 100% correct.
Exactly and what daft questions in my opinion. Why did they not do this and why do that? Why didn't they use a cannon? stupid. People with doubts with zero knowledge of that time, the battle nor are they blacksmiths etc
The internet has created many platofrms that allow anyone, no matter how well educated or not, no matter how informed and intelligent or not, to have a say. It is literally the entire bell curve of quality in replies when maybe only the top two sigma are worth the time. I guess it is empowering, but not necessarily elevating the discourse.
Side note: i just learned that if you edit (i had to correct a minor spelling error) a "favorited" comment, it losses its "favorite" status. I suspect this is to prevent commentors from messing with content creators by changing harmless comments into awful or offensive remarks
The maturity of this video is astounding and quite refreshing in the YT landscape. You seem to approach this as an adult or teacher imo should; acknowledging the questions, factual, relaxed, to the point and with the ability to say "I don't know" or "someone else can answer this better than me". Bravo!
@@Kriegerdammerung From what I gather, Richard was actually hit in the shoulder, died of gangrene two weeks later, and most importantly, sources closest to the event mention that he wasn't wearing any armor, only his helmet. So probably not relevant here.
@@lscibor Which begs the question: "Why in god's name was he not wearing his armor???" You'd think a king out on campaign would wear the best armor available. As king, he probably had access to the best Gambeson, Mail hauberks, Coifs and possibly even a coat of plates.
@@shockwave6213 , Same reason some leaders have worn red, moved across in front of their company, etc. To inspire their men. They come to be doing it for their leader, a stable and real thing to hang on to. I made a concrete decision to enjoy the adventure, to replace the fear. It worked.
@@shockwave6213 I don't know the specifics here but I can think of many times in history when a commander was not wearing armor for one reason or another. For example there is Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome from 361-363 AD. He was killed in the field when he was fighting without wearing armor for whatever reason and died from his wounds
I know I'm very late to the discussion on this, but regarding the question of "How did the English win at Agincourt if the longbow could not penetrate French armor?": Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only tangible benefit on the battlefield comes from killing shots through the breastplate head-on, and that if your shots aren't scoring kills, you aren't being useful. There are still plenty of avenues for longbow hits to have contributed in a critical role to the English victory. Don't think of it as being a leading contributor of kills, necessarily. Think of it as degrading the ability of the French army to operate due to wounds--yes, non-lethal wounds--and fatigue, both physical and psychological. First off, consider the psychological impact of being under fire from those heavy arrows coming down, or, as the case may be, coming straight at you and your comrades. As Tod mentions here, there's always the sense that you're not safe. You *know* there are weak points in your armor, and all it takes is one lucky arrow to find its mark, or for some of those splinters to slip in somewhere and cause some harm. More to the point, even if the arrows are not penetrating, one can't imagine the sensation of an impact would be comfortable. That has to contribute to the psychological strain as well, and imagine having to suffer through the dread of arrows pinging off of your armor like dozens of little hammers banging away at you while your formation trudges across open ground. You can't very well charge forward across that whole distance, and you'd much rather cluster together with your brothers in arms instead of breaking ranks to rush forward, so you can't very well use speed to reduce the time during which you're under fire. Sure, your armor is keeping you safe, but that's only good for as long as you can hold it together. That psychological strain has an exhaustion all its own. Men reaching the English lines already a bit worn down from the barrage--both physically and mentally--are going to be easier to break. Secondly, and just as importantly, you're not just dealing with arrows hitting the front of your breastplate, where your armor is thickest. Not only do you have those gaps to worry about, but the armor isn't of uniform thickness. Consider Tod's test shooting at brigandine. Those arrows punched through 1.2mm mild steel plates. That's not to say any and all 1.2mm plates of iron-based metal would be equally vulnerable; angles matter a lot as well, for example. However, we can already see ways in which armor at the periphery is more vulnerable. Arrows striking the inside of the elbow, for example, might penetrate, or might penetrate through a plate elsewhere on a limb. Thinner plates offer other opportunities for penetration. And then, as soon as you've been wounded, you're no longer as effective in combat. Either you are brave and resilient enough to keep fighting despite a physical injury or you have to withdraw from the line. Either way, that is a longbow arrow that has degraded the effectiveness of the French army, right there. All of those factors add up.
Interesting points. I dont know which war exactly this reffered to but i think it was vietnam where some traps were specificly designed not to kill but to wound the enemy. The thought is that it is more ressource consuming to treat and evacuate a wounded soldier than it is to just have a dead body. And the alternative to just end them right there or leave wounded people to die slowly or fall into the hands of the enemy would probably drop your troops moral signifficantly, to know you will get abandoned by your comrades is a horrible thought imo so eitherway having people wounded sucks. Again i dont know how accurate that information is but it made sense to me and fits perfect with your train of thought.
That tactic has been used throughout the history of warfare. To the point snipers will let a wounded soldier live so those attempting help are new targets. Amazing scene in full metal jacket shows it spectacularly.
@@paultequlabeer That's not even really what I'm referring to. That was the sniper letting a wounded soldier act as bait. I'm talking about, on an even more superficial level, an injured man can no longer fight at full capacity and, often times, he would probably withdraw rather than proceed to join the attack knowing that his limb or shoulder has an arrow lodged in it. He's not dead, and his armor may well have done its job, but you've still taken a man out of the fight.
@@DavidEllis94 similar to how punji pits caltrops snipers purposefully wounding are all able to degrade the effectiveness of the unit as a whole. Again tons of examples throughout history so while you’re “not even referring to” my initial example it’s a very similar tactic.
Well, my biggest question: Will there be more tests? was answered! I’m very much looking forward to the next videos. Thanks lads for all the work you’ve done and are doing.
The people complaining about Joe's technique sound like they've never pulled a bow over 90 lbs in their life. Also, what makes them think that that would affect the outcome? The same bow, same arrow, same velocity, same distance, same target. So the result will be the same.
My longbow is 90 lbs. It is well suited to me, but and extra 60-70 lbs would make it way to much for a aimed shot, if I even could pull it. I guess I would need lots of extra training.
@BLUE DOG Because you actually don't precisely aim with a warbow. Well you try to. But you are aiming at moving troops that are relatively far away. Also they didn't set out to discover whether or not the arrow would pierce a helmet or a leg piece. They set out to discover whether or not it would pierce a breastplate.
@@Tibovl When I was young and was into medieval RPGs, I had a miniature in plate that had the huge bulging stomach/breast plate... we used to call that 'fat mail' (vs. plate mail) but it makes more sense having seen the historical armour in action. I'd bet a lot of prettier looking armours wouldn't be half as effective.
@BLUE DOG Doubting it's simple to hit the eyes through a good helmet well designed to also deflect shots. It might be your best bet, but it may well not still be a great bet and the odds of missing entirely go up. Were it me, I'd guess to shoot for the thighs, knees, and upper arms with elbows. The joints will be less well armoured likely and the if you get through what might well be thinner armour on the upper arm or leg, you can hit pretty major veins and arteries (esp the leg). With an arm down or a leg out, the knight may well be mission killed.
@@Tibovl If you are shooting at any formation in mail or lighter armour (not knights), center of mass is a good bet for maximum number of hits and maximum effect. Now, if they were firing straight (vs. arced) and at ranges 30m and under, they they might be able to try a headshot, but your odds of a miss go up. Shoot for the body, try to find an armour join or a bending joint or the side or rear of a limb that might be easier to penetrate. Of course, if they were horsed (not this case), shoot the horse. They have less armour and taking them out removes the mobility and shock power plus the collapse could pin or kill the knight.
Would a crash dummy really be able to provide relevant data in other circumstances than crashes? I'm under the impression those sensors are highly specialised for that very specific job. But if not, I'm voting for this idea!
I always thought that when we had soldiers in red coats firing those gunpowder guns in 18 century against the enemy in steel armour and fired arrows from a bow from 13 or 14 century The red coat would be wiped out by the arrows lol.
Definitely. When you are talking draw weights as big as they were talking, you don't just draw it like any other bow unless you are Hercules. With a little training, I managed to draw a 200 lb. bow once. Once. And the way that I had to bend my body, to use every muscle I had, was very similar to the way it was shown in the video.
@@HistoricalWeapons My local fish and hunting club has an Archery program every year that lasts two weeks . Its a driv eto get more people interested in Archery (they started it after the uptick i interest after The Hunger Games movies). They had a guy from the UK there who was running a seminar on the longbow. He had a 200lb. bow and was giving some instruction on it. I would never purchase one myself. Too heavy, too difficult for me to use. Too expensive!
How many people have seen that though? A lot of the test shooting videos out there I've seen have been at about 80-100lbs because that's all they could manage.
I thought "how Agincourt was won" had been beaten to death for a long time. Why are people still thinking it was because the English turned the French into pin cushions by using a thousand Legolas's against their knights? The French had put all of their eggs into one basket, relying entirely on the full armored charge of their knights to rout the English. As was the case in most medieval battles (that we know of), it wasn't about killing your enemy so much as routing them. As in making them say "Eff this noise, I'm getting out of here". The English had a diverse enough army, but lots of longbows, not ALL longbows as the myth goes. For a long time, people thought the English archers just picked off French knights on horseback or something and won the day. Or worse, they shot a million arrows in the sky, blotting out the Sun all 500 style. What actually happened was the weather was garbage, the French couldn't really get a charge going through mud and slop, and so they turned themselves promptly into foot-knights. And slogged at a slightly quick pace through a soup of a battlefield. Add in all those friggin arrows flying all over the place and exploding into chaos, the French basically did a self-own and lost a battle they could have easily won by being more cautious, flexible, and traditional. Basically the French committed to a single tactic and it was the wrong day of the year for it. A lesson many lesser generals have learned the hard way throughout history. The English didn't get lucky either, they simply used what they had and took advantage of the situation. Which is what smart generals and commanders do. Just want to say this comment is more about other comments and not about the arrows vs armor video, which I thought was fantastic. I'd read about arrows exploding and some of the chaos it caused in old battles, but never saw it in action before. Your video really put it into perspective. Imagine hundreds of projectiles doing that all over the place every few seconds or so. That's how real warfare is in about any period, not quite so tame as in movies. War is just utter chaos.
There was a small cavalry charge of only 700 knights, followed by a foot assault of thousands. Everyone seems to imagine that the French all fell off their horses, then kept coming. Not so.
One thought that I had as I was watching this is the shape of the Breastplate had a lot to do with dissipating the energy of the arrow, and I am curious how much effectiveness is lost as more dents are made to it. One example, a Knight gets whacked in the belly with a mace and makes a large dent, which is followed by a hardened tip arrow. Another example, 5 Archers singled out one knight and pelted that knight with 5 arrows at once in 3 volleys. Could arrows compromise the shape of the armor enough that one arrow would not glance off the side any more and penetrate it?
I must say though that there's a surprising amounts of sources from Agincourt that mention a lot of knights getting killed by arrows. It seems like visors were particularly "easily" penetrated, likely owing to the breaths. Some of the sources do imply breastplates being penetrated as well, which I believe could certainly be possible in two situations: 1. When the breastplates are weaker. And to reinforce this point I will mention some armour regulations from 1448 France. Said regulations states that a plate cuirass should be proofed with 2 marks if it was windlass crossbow-proof or with 1 mark if it was proof against lever crossbows or _bows._ However the bows that the English used were more powerful than the French ones, and I'd probably put the power they delievered at closer to the mark of a windlass. Meaning that if you had armour in a similar grade as the single-proofed armour, it may get penetrated at close ranges. 2. The second situation would be if arrows hit the same place a few times. One arrow may leave a dent, but hit with two or three in the same place and it will likely pierce. And while this seems uncommon, it perhaps is not when you send thousands upon thousands of arrows downrange. The chance goes from highly unlikely to somewhat plausible. Of course it bears to mention that if every single arrow fired did damage, then the French would never have reached the lines of the English and there would never be a melee (even if one particular source says something along the lines of 'No one arrow flied without wounding', however I have my doubts about that statement). But even if a mere 10% of arrows found their mark, that effect would be quite profound and in line with what is described in the accounts of the battle.
Something to keep in mind, I believe that the English forced the French to cross a field...after a rain, hence why there were no horses or mounted charges. Knights would have gotten bogged down in the mud, slower and easier pickings with more volleys able to be fired. On top of the ones who simply got stuck and became, according to one source I read (I am sorry, I can't remember what the source is), so deeply mired in the muck that when the archers walked out onto the field they simply strode up to the stuck knights (they wore no armor so could move fairly easily), flipped open their visor and stabbed them in the eyes.
@@135Fenrir I think that last is reasonable, given testing of armor steel in mud done in another video on another channel, and the force required to extract it (while those with cloth shoes had no trouble, those with armored feet were well and truly stuck. Those who fell down were also well and truly stuck. Victims for those dastardly English peasants with their daggers.
My personal belief is that your first point might be close to what has actually happened. There is a video of a Polish bladesmith, who builds his blades from historical material and then tests such a blade against historical steel. Search for "legenda polskiej sztuki wyrobu oręża - Festiwal Tajemnic 2014" to find the video. The testing starts around 21:30 mark. He starts with historical iron, then proceeds to modern iron and finally modern mild steel. His blade is capable of simply cutting the historical material with ease and no damage to the edge at all. Modern iron is much tougher, modern mild steel is on yet another level. The brestplate tested in Todd's video was built from modern steel. It's hard to tell how much better it is than what was available in XVth century, but most probably it does not reflect the quality of the vast majority of armor available back then. I mean, there must have been a reason for using bodkin points as shown around 1:50 mark... We even know this particular bodkin was shot at something hard, because the tip rolled over. A point shaped like that is bad at piercing maile, it's not very good against flesh and it only makes sense as plate-piercing device.
Taking a simple look at the outcomes of all the battles it's pretty clear that without a defensive setup the English forces were overrun. That gives an impression that multiple arrow strikes are needed for effective archery.
A lot of the "criticism" was noting variables not tested in the video, especially since it was stated that there would be follow up tests and was given respectfully and constructively. Not all, of course, as it it the internet, but surprisingly the large majority of it.
@@ME-hm7zm Not seriously, but... He used to be funny, despite frequently wrong and "making up facts", while never mentioning any sources. However, over time he lost it, got that feeling of being invincible. I was there, when he assaulted NUSensei for criticising his poor understanding of archery, I was there seeing flood of armchair general's fandom spilling through links under "NUSensei is IDIOT" video, filling comment section with invectives and racial slurs... Luckily, NUSensei has proved to be more mature, stepped back, issuing lenghty explanatory video, apologising for "not being precise". Shad mistakenly understood it as apology for "criticising Allmighty Shad", deleted abovementioned assault gate and boasted in his community page, that it was proven, he was right... ...disgusting...
"How did the English defeat the French then?" You don't have to answer that question. All you did was clarifying one point: can English longbows penetrate French breast plates?
"Why didn't they shoot the 200lb bow?" For the same reason the US doesn't arm it's soldiers with 30-06s anymore, it's hard to shoot and is completely overkill. It really must be pointed out how insane 160lbs is. most people getting started with archery might struggle with 40lbs.
Although I must admit I'm a fairly fit 200lb bloke, so a weight like that shouldn't be a problem for me anyways. (I really want to try my luck with an 80 pound bow sometimes)
@@Olav_Hansen I asked around somewhere a while back about what a good starting weight should be for a complete novice at archery, thinking40 lbs would probably be no big deal, and they were telling me to go lighter. And yeah, you are probably an exception compared to the average youtube commenter. One thing to think about though, if you do get to draw that 80lbs, that that is still half of what Joe is drawing.
I'm 6'4", 225lbs and shoot a 55 lb bow. At bow meetings we shoot 6 dozen before lunch and 6 dozen after lunch and by the end of the day my accuracy begins to suffer. Can't even begin to think how much strength training I'd need and sore I'd be with 160lbs let alone 200lbs.
@@johnplath1072first there is a special draw method (using your back and not your arm strength) which will make you draw 1 1/2 - 2 times your normal draw, and second firing 70 arrows is more than likely more than the average amount of arrows that was shot during azincourt. (and third archery was not a hobby, but a job practiced for (assumably) over 1 1/2 years of training by only the most "promising" (accuracy/strength ratio) archers in a country in which archery was already a hobby/usefull skill.
You have followed up a great video with a good "questions answered" video. The thing that I would really like to see in further tests is to add shoulders to the armour to see if the ricochet pieces of the arrows lodge in the shoulders and armpit? Mounting a helmet for similar reasons would be great- but it all adds to the cost and preparation time.
I was fully expecting a tirade admonishing the plethora of inane comments instead of this quite reasonable discourse on the particular how's and why's of your experiment.
I love everyone online that knows more than real professionals that did the experiment. Most of them learned everything they know from Hollywood movies and fantasy books.
I'm glad there is so much excitement, the video deserves the attention. Hopefully, we can have more of these videos. It's great that you are taking the time to answer these questions.
The weather at Agincourt and the soil composition played a great part in the French defeat. The weather was very wet and this caused the ground to become very sticky . If you walk across a wet clay field it sticks to your feet, if you don't stop and remove it it builds up and saps your strength. Also you have a crowding effect from the narrowing of the terrain. Think of the work recently done to computer model crowd accidents in Stadiums and the like. All of these factors added to the arrow storm causing the French knights to close their visors and try to walk in an orderly fashion over heavy slippery soil and people behind them pushing them on . In those circumstances it is likely that a great many knights fell over and were then walked over and drowned by their own side. They would not be able to stop and pick up a fallen comrade, they would have been trying not to fall over themselves and reach the English line of battle. In hindsight it was a battle the home side should have refused to fight as they had room to give and then chose to fight on a better suited field. Great video on the arms and armour and it looks like you have got it about right.
Nice video. I would still like to see heavier arrows used, such as the "quarter pound" arrow. If the arrows that were used had shafts of poplar or other light wood, maybe an ash shaft would do better. And also, I think the blunt force would be most effective against the head, not the breast, at least for the disorienting effect. That would be interesting to look into.
Yeah, for a longbow to be shooting arrows at 180 FPS seems to be indicative of a fairly light arrow grain per pound wise. You could undoubtedly squeeze out more energy there. But, of course, those arrows would be terrible for distance shooting.
@@nutyyyy Yes, but there are also historical arrows that were heavier and I would like to see those tested because I think they would be more effective.
@@jamesk8730 medieval arrows were lossed at comparatively short ranges (consistent evidence that they fired flat trajectories), where the speed would be more an advantage than momentum of mass.
