# Crecy



## LoneRider (Oct 4, 2008)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.viewCategory&FriendID=97185984&BlogCategoryID=1 
 														  														I wasn't a big comic book reader (unless you count Calvin and Hobbes and Garfield) till a couple of years ago. I read Art Spiegelman's Maus, in which anthromorphic animals are used to tell the tale of a Holocaust Survivor, the author's own father, Vladek Spiegelman as part of a class called Literature of War in 2005. 

 There's a shop called The Dragon's Tale in the Tradewind's Shopping Plaza where I attend my Kung Fu class twice a week. I've gone in there multiple times since 2006, just poking my nose in there out of curiousity. 

  I happened upon this comic book called Crecy, depicts the English victory over the French at the Battle of Crecy during the 100 Years War. What happened was an outnumbered English army defeated a far superior French force utilizing better tactics and the killing prowess of the longbowmen (kinsfolk of Robin of Locksley, better known as Robin Hood). It grabbed my attention because of my own knowledge of history and how the battle of Crecy showed that an outnumbered force using combined arms (longbowmen, dismounted men at arms, and knights) and superior tactics can triumph over a numerically and materielly superior force. 

 The story follows one William of Stonham, an archer in the service of King Edward III. William narrates to the reader the events of the battle with a cocktail of profane and bellicose British slang combined with some excellent insights breaking the 4th Wall.

 For instance in one scene where he refers to the English arrows of the period: "These things are going to look primitive to you but you have to remember that we're not stupid. We have the same intelligence of you. We just don't have the same cumulative knowledge that you do. So we apply our intelligence to what we have." 

 I found it to be a very interesting way to depict a crucial battle of history, using the medium of the comic book. I of course loved the story because it told the story from the point of view of a common soldier. 

 Bit of medieval trivia: the two fingered 'peace sign' that you see on the comic cover are the two fingers used to nock an arrow. Archers used to present these two fingers at opposing forces before they'd nock arrows, it was the equivalent to giving someone the bird. Helluva contrast to what a 'V' with middle and index finger means these days (i.e. the Peace Sign). 


 I really enjoyed how the narrator stated that the longbow was made with an understanding of muscle and nature. I took a course in medieval history Warfare in the Middle Ages and I recall my professor having told me about how forensics experts who examined exhumed medieval graves could tell if the man was an archer due to evidence of increased upper body musculature.

 I was wondering if anyone else has ever read this particular comic on the battle of Crecy. If not, I highly recommend it for any historically minded folk or those who enjoy good storytelling. I guessed any archery types would enjoy it as well...


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 4, 2008)

Interesting, *Lonerider*.  

There are numerous theories as to how the 'Archer's Salute' came about, none of which really hold water.  My own feeling is that it was a simple display of aggression, just like brandishing a sword i.e. "I'm going to **** you with these and there's nothing you can do about it".

A side note is that, from the English side of the Atlantic, you have to distinguish between the "Peace sign" {knuckles towards yourself} and the "V" sign {knuckles towards the enemy}.  Very different meanings .


----------



## LoneRider (Oct 4, 2008)

I stand corrected regarding that 'Peace Sign' and V Sign.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 5, 2008)

I have not read the comic, I'd be interested in hearing more comments about the arrows appearing "primitive".

I'm currently, and have been recently, reading some works specifically on the Longbow.  My suspicion is that there is nothing primitive about the arrows of that age...

Also, regarding the increased musculature of archers, what is often seen among career archers of the period is actually distorted growth of the spine itself.  The English Warbow was extremely powerful with a draw weight of over #100 and often approaching as much as #200.  Considering that most modern archers utilize a bow ranging from #40 to #60, including for hunting large game like deer and black bear, that gives you an idea of the difference in power of these weapons.  So what happens is that these archers would tend to overdevelop on one side of the body due to repeatedly drawing these powerful bows.  Over time, this lop-sided musculature would actually cause the spine to twist.  This is seen in the archaeological finds of soldier remains in graves of the period.


----------



## LoneRider (Oct 5, 2008)

Well, compared to the graphite composite shafts, rubber fletching and alloy barbed heads the primitive reference could be made.

 What I believe Warren Ellis was attempting to say was compared to weapons technology that the modern infantry soldier has at his disposal is certainly more advanced to what William of Stonham had at his disposal. Ellis was making a point (through William) that the medieval folk used the cumulative knowledge of their time to create the most effective war machines they could with what they had and that they would appear primitive compared to something such as the M16A4 (with it's ACOG, hand grips and rail adaption system) used by the modern US Marine.

 Thanks for the insight regarding the spinal distortion of archers of the period.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2008)

LoneRider said:


> Well, compared to the graphite composite shafts, rubber fletching and alloy barbed heads the primitive reference could be made.


 
ah, gotcha.  Yes, clearly they did not have access to modern materials that simply did not exist at the time.  But you also need to look at the purpose for which the weapon was put to use.  Modern graphite arrows are largely used, correct me if I'm wrong, in modern target shooting.  They are light and very straight, and this aids in accuracy.  But this kind of arrow would be a complete failure on the 15th century battlefield.  

On the battlefield, the arrow needed to be heavy so that it packed a real punch when it hit.  In addition to having a hardend iron or steel head, it could punch thru maille, and even plate armor.  As armor improved and plate became more commonplace, the arrows and bows also changed in response to this.  Bows became even more powerful, reaching the #160 and up range, but this also required a heavier arrow, as a lighter one might be destroyed by the mere act of firing it out of such a powerful bow.  The heavy arrow also was needed to carry the stout iron head, as a lighter arrow wouldn't carry it as well, nor as far.  Arrows of the time of Henry VIII could weigh as much as a quarter pound, and had tremendous penetration ability, something that a graphite arrow would not have against plate armor.  Actually, I believe a graphite arrow would simply shatter.

So the bows and arrows of the middle ages certainly existed upon a continuum, they were not all exactly the same, not even during a specific period.  They varied according to the strength of the archer and the penetration needs of the day.



> What I believe Warren Ellis was attempting to say was compared to weapons technology that the modern infantry soldier has at his disposal is certainly more advanced to what William of Stonham had at his disposal. Ellis was making a point (through William) *that the medieval folk used the cumulative knowledge of their time to create the most effective war machines they could with what they had* and that they would appear primitive compared to something such as the M16A4 (with it's ACOG, hand grips and rail adaption system) used by the modern US Marine.


 
good points, but again, I think it's a mistake to compare weapons of the past with modern weapons, and expect to have any kind of reasonable or worthwhile comparison.  The full context of the era needs to be taken into account, and thus put the whole picture into view.  The above portion that I bolded could also be said about ourselves and the M16A4, that also was built upon cumulative knowledge that several more centuries gave us, but hadn't yet been developed in the middle ages.  That's another element of the continuum.



> Thanks for the insight regarding the spinal distortion of archers of the period.


 
you're welcome.

I'll suggest the book I am in the middle of reading, as a good source.  It is an oversized book of some 400 pages not counting the end notes and references, and is quite hefty, but it's a good source of info on this topic.  It's called _The Great Warbow_, by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy.

There are some other good titles out there, including _The Bent Stick_, tho I don't remember the author, who has another book as well, but I've forgot the title.  Also very good books focused on the English Longbow, you could probably find them on Amazon.

Happy researching!


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 6, 2008)

I find myself wondering if any experimentation has been done to see if light modern assault rifle munitions would be effective against plate armour?  It sometimes happens in the cycles of offense and defence that what is effective in one context is ineffective in another e.g. that the Iowa class battleships would shrug off the effects of modern missile attacks that would sink anything else in the naval inventory.

I know that some work has been done with bows that has shown that a properly harnessed man could walk through arrowfire with a reasonable assurance of getting to his target in fighting trim.

As an aside by the way, unless Hardy has improved his research beyond accepting hearsay evidence as proof, then take his output with a (smallish) pinch of salt.  It's good reading and not 'wrong' per se but it does cast the bow in the most favourable light imaginable.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I find myself wondering if any experimentation has been done to see if light modern assault rifle munitions would be effective against plate armour? It sometimes happens in the cycles of offense and defence that what is effective in one context is ineffective in another e.g. that the Iowa class battleships would shrug off the effects of modern missile attacks that would sink anything else in the naval inventory.


 
I don't know about any systematic testing, but it is my understanding that modern rifles can effectively penetrate midieval plate armor.  If it is made out of modern high-quality steels it might be possible that it could deflect some modern rifle shots, but it may be that it would need to be so thick as to be unwearable at that point.  Midieval steel didn't have the same quality consistency that is possible with modern alloy steels, so I suspect any actual midieval piece would be defeated by a modern rifle.  It's my understanding that as early firearms came into use, plate armor got heavier and heavier in an attempt to defeat the firearms, but it was ultimately ineffectual and was abandoned because it just didn't make sense to wear it at that point.



> I know that some work has been done with bows that has shown that a properly harnessed man could walk through arrowfire with a reasonable assurance of getting to his target in fighting trim.


 
I understand that one big advantage of plate armour is that it can be made with curves and angles that help deflect incoming missile attacks.  In this case, it is possible in theory, I suppose, but I'm having trouble believing he would get thru a proper arrow storm.  Certainly if he were mounted, his horse would not.

In _Secrets of the English War_ Bow, by Hugh Soar,  (same author who wrote _The Crooked Stick_) they did some experimentation with this kind of thing.  They built up a simulation of an armored, mounted man charging from some 100 meters out, to see how many shots a good archer can get off, and what kind of damage could be done.  They wrapped a slaughtered pig carcass in various types of armour, and fired at it with different kinds of arrowheads, to see what kind of penetration was accomplished.  Very interesting works.



> As an aside by the way, unless Hardy has improved his research beyond accepting hearsay evidence as proof, then take his output with a (smallish) pinch of salt. It's good reading and not 'wrong' per se but it does cast the bow in the most favourable light imaginable.


 
I am not otherwise familiar with Hardy, does he have a dodgy reputation?


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> There are some other good titles out there, including _The Bent Stick_, tho I don't remember the author,


 
Sorry, _The *Crooked* Stick_ by Hugh Soars, and his other volume, _Secrets of the English War Bow_.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 6, 2008)

Not a dodgy reputation as such, *FC* and I apologise if I gave that impression.  It is just that he is an enthusiast of the first water for the power of the bow, especially the longbow, as a war-winning weapon and that colours what he writes.  It gives a somewhat 'rosy' impression of what the bow could achieve.

Your point about the utility of indirect bowfire on unharnessed cavalry is a very important one and goes someway to explaining why the bow hung on so long in the inventory (that and being immensely cheap to field for feudal lords seeking to fulfil their obligations without spending a lot).

My thoughts about the light assault rifle rounds was that I recall reading that M16 rounds were having trouble dealing with surprisingly light armour.

I haven't got time to go into this fascinating subject deeply tonight as I have to get ready for the imminent arrival of my LAN gamers; so I'll direct those interested to have a look at Mike Loades practical research into this and I'll get back 'on thread' tomorrow with luck.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Not a dodgy reputation as such, *FC* and I apologise if I gave that impression. It is just that he is an enthusiast of the first water for the power of the bow, especially the longbow, as a war-winning weapon and that colours what he writes. It gives a somewhat 'rosy' impression of what the bow could achieve.


 
ah well, that is quite evident.  It's certainly more fun to read about the longbow written by a longbow enthusiast, is it not, than something written by a longbow critic?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> Your point about the utility of indirect bowfire on unharnessed cavalry is a very important one and goes someway to explaining why the bow hung on so long in the inventory (that and being immensely cheap to field for feudal lords seeking to fulfil their obligations without spending a lot).


 
yes, altho regarding the cheapness, it seems that there were times when it was difficult to obtain the best quality yew in sufficient quantities.  Seems like the yew grown in England isn't quite as good as the yew grown in other areas, due to the weather patterns.  So sometimes getting it imported in sufficient quantity was difficult, and made them more expensive.



> My thoughts about the light assault rifle rounds was that I recall reading that M16 rounds were having trouble dealing with surprisingly light armour.
> 
> I haven't got time to go into this fascinating subject deeply tonight as I have to get ready for the imminent arrival of my LAN gamers; so I'll direct those interested to have a look at Mike Loades practical research into this and I'll get back 'on thread' tomorrow with luck.


 
I'd love to hear more about this.  I guess I kind of assumed it was obvious that modern assault rifles would have no trouble with midieval plate.  If that's not always the case, it'd be interesting to hear about it.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 6, 2008)

Ive shot .223 through steel plate. Normal hardness steel needs to be almost 3/4" thick. You wouldnt be able to move in a suit of 3/4" steel.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 6, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Ive shot .223 through steel plate. Normal hardness steel needs to be almost 3/4" thick. You wouldnt be able to move in a suit of 3/4" steel.


 
So it's safe to say that it fully defeats 1/4 inch?

do you know what kind of steel it was that you were shooting at?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 6, 2008)

AR 500 is the industry standard (pretty much) for high velocity steel targets.


----------



## LoneRider (Oct 6, 2008)

Archangel M, what my ship's Chief Gunner's Mate briefed us on the .223 round was that it is especially good at penetration of armor, so that pretty much supports the fact that .223 rounds will penetrate modern body armor.

 FC, regarding the primitive comment in the previous page Stonham describes the arrows conrstruction, but I found his technical decriptions of the arrows to be _anything but_ primitive. It was helpful to me to know how the medieval archer used his equipment to take down the armored foe. (i.e. the Bodkin arrows for plate armor countering, the broadheads to kill horses, and the ordinary arrowhead with the barbed edges to make the arrow stick in wounds).

 My medieval warfare course tended to focus more on the strategic aspect of medieval warfare. My professor still told us things about the technological and tactical aspects of fighting in the era as well. So this Crecy story was an interesting supplement to what I learned in the class. 

 Actually graphite arrows are also used to shoot at game. My father uses them against wild hogs (very tough skinned game) all the time. Admittedly it's not an armored knight, but it does prove composite arrows are useful for more than target shooting.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't want to openly disagree with those who have their own personal experience of shooting 5.56 boat-tailed rounds through 3/4" plate steel but your hands-on experiments do not gel with the reports I have heard from the active battlefields of today (some on this forum).  The designed tumbling of the round has resulted in reports of engagements where lightly armoured targets have been hit and not sufficiently inconvenienced to either prevent their escape or returning effective fire.

This matches with many similar reports from Vietnam where environmental cover such as tall grass was enough to intefer with the round in flight and generate a miss.  It also matches with the almost universal dislike the round is viewed with in the British army.  Some of this undoubtably comes from the fact that it was forced on us but I don't personally know any soldier who did not prefer the 7.62 NATO round.

I would also suggest that it might be worth considering that armour that is worthless is not long used, especially when it is heinously expensive.  The plate armour of the Middle Ages had an equivalent price tag as a mansion does today - nobles would not buy it if it it did not work.  Most specifically, it was designed to be proof against arrow fire and is one of the reasons why the heavy draw-weight crossbows became so prevalent and why firearms were used once accuracy became better than luck.

If you don't agree, I would strongly advise looking into the historical record quite deeply, paying particular attention to how plate armour was constructed and what it was worn with.  Something to note is that during the Crusades, before plate was even developed, the linen jacks that men-at-arms wore under their chain was sufficient to stop fire from the composite bows of the Arabs.  Injury came when the shot found a way past the armour - hence the use of massed volley fire to generate a percentage of effective hits.

This is, of course, not a simple subject as we are talking about battlefields where different generations of kit was in use at the same time.  However, professional analysis of the most famous of battles where the Longbow is vaunted as a super-weapon (Crecy and Agincourt) has shown that the enemy casualties were generated by other means.  This is not to say that the bow played no role; at Agincourt, for example, it certainly was a means via which the French were unhorsed as they tried to charge up a muddy slope.  But it has been glamourised beyond all measure due to the doughtyness of the men who carried it - they might not have brought the knights down with their bows but they certainly did with their mauls and daggers as they brawled in the quagmire.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 6, 2008)

I didnt say .223 would penetrate AR500 3/4"..thats the thickness you need to stop it consistantly/effectively. Much depends on steel hardness..bullet weight..veloicty..range..angle of deflection etc.

.223 would slice through any man-worn steel armor that would be light enough to be worn. And penetration and terminal effect are 2 different animals. Just because a round can laser through the side of a tank wont necessarially mean an instant stop on a human target..again, round type and target struck make the difference.

http://consumermaven.wordpress.com/2007/06/19/steel-penetration-of-223-bullets/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfNhrEbb_IA&feature=related

The .223 vs. "X" debate is way outside the scope of this thread. Needless to say its just like comparing 9mm to .45 cal handguns..knives vs. pistols etc. Every weapon has its operating parameters. .223 is excellent for what it was designed for. For "up close and personal" combat such as jungle fighting/urban terrain I want to be able to carry a lot of ammo and have fewer magazine changes. For theaters with longer ranges expected Id prefer 7.62. The type of round foisted on the military is usually the larger issue than the caliber iteslf.

That being said..Im a proponent of the US military upgrading to 6.8 Rem in an operating rod driven M4/M16 platform. Best of both worlds.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 7, 2008)

Nice points about the 'horses for courses' nature of munitions and also quite valid to say that I was close to tangenting the thread by bringing it up .  I can't watch the vids now as I'm at work and Nannie says "No!" .  I'll catch 'em once I'm home tho' :tup:.

Somewhat more on track, some of the reasons why bowfire was not terribly effective against the harnessed knight were: 
- that plate was specifically forged to deflect arrows
- that plate was steel whereas arrowheads were iron
- that plate was actually a composite layered armour with leather and mutli-layered linen underneath

Again, I just want to make sure readers know I'm not setting out to be overtly disrespectful to the bowman tradition upon which the yeoman portions of Englands armies were founded.  I'm just trying to dim the rose hue of the light that illuminates the longbow a little.

The longbow had a useful role to play for one very simple reason - only a small percentage of most armies were fully harnessed.  The poorer men/sergeants-at-arms and the yeoman and peasant levies were all grist to the arrowstorms mill.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 7, 2008)

I would think that the volume of fire would have played a role. A cloud of arrows would have been much more likely to find a gap in armor, hit a plate flush and penetrate or take out the horse. I think many people think the longbowman consistantly took out mounted knights with "direct fire" a la Robin Hood. Most engagements started at ranges where a single archer was unlikely to be able to pick a point target and hit it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 7, 2008)

Quite so.  The longbow particularly was used as an indirect fire weapon, using massive continuous volleys to disrupt cavalry, not by killing the rider but by injuring the horse.  

The sheer volume of fire is hard to comprehend when you have contingents of thousands of archers firing at a rate that kept several arrows in the air at once.

Even then, the casualty rate amongst those rich enough to afford full harness was very light.  At Agincourt, hardly any of the French nobility died through arrow hits on the way up to the English lines.  Many were unhorsed, especially as the range fell and had to slog the rest of the way on foot.  That's when the slaughter really began.  

It is theorised that the terrains topology and the condition of the ground played a huge role in the battle, funneling the French together in a crush and sapping their ability to manoever.  

Also, the fact that the archers were not part of the Chivalric system played a role as they had no cause to attempt to ransom a knight.  Uninterested in either a fair fight or making an honourable capture, the bowman would mob a noble, bear him to the ground and either crush him to death with their mauls or weedle their poignards through the armour joints and eyeslits :yeuk:.

That's why I said ealier that the longbow might not have settled the issue on the field in and of itself, the bowmen certainly did.


----------



## LoneRider (Oct 7, 2008)

Nor did I state it was the longbow exclusively in the original post. I said it was combined arms that did the French in at Crecy and Agincourt and similar battles. Archers and dismounted men at arms wielding halbreds and pikes to unhorse cavalrymen performed as a combined arms force to defeat the French.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 7, 2008)

Aye, that you did *LoneRider*.  I think we just concentrated on the 'bow' side of things because we're talking in the Archery forum .


----------



## DocWard (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> This is not to say that the bow played no role; at Agincourt, for example, it certainly was a means via which the French were unhorsed as they tried to charge up a muddy slope. But it has been glamourised beyond all measure due to the doughtyness of the men who carried it - they might not have brought the knights down with their bows but they certainly did with their mauls and daggers as they brawled in the quagmire.


 
I think you may have Agincourt and Crecy confused. Agincourt was fought on a flat field, although it was muddy enough that the few horses used by the French were sinking to their fetlocks. The majority of French knights and men-at-arms were on foot. There was also a bit of a bottleneck, causing the mass of French knights and men-at-arms to come to a near standstill. They were under massed fire from the English longbowmen the entire way, until arrow supplies were depleted. The bowmen then waded into the exhausted and injured French with short swords and daggers. Some sources indicate that many French were too exhuasted to even defend themselves.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm always ready to learn, good sir but I am not convinced of my own confusion in this instance:

http://www.allthequeensmen.com/agincourt.htm

http://usma-hyw-staffride.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-seven-agincourt-and-crecy.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A446465

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Battle_of_Agincourt

However, I may have been less than clear in my recounting of the environs and made it sound more like Crecy; for that I apologise.


----------



## DocWard (Apr 14, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I'm always ready to learn, good sir but I am not convinced of my own confusion in this instance:
> 
> http://www.allthequeensmen.com/agincourt.htm
> 
> ...



I'm always ready to learn as well. I have my minor in history thanks to the Battle of Agincourt. That study was done some years ago, but from what I recall, the French cavalry was essentially split, charging up the sides of the field, while the main force of the knights and men-at-arms lining up in three lines, the first two on foot, with a third mounted to the rear. As I recall, mercenary crossbowmen were behind them.

I could be mistaken on some of the details, so I will have to pull out some of my research to be sure. I didn't get a good sense for the French strategy from the links provided, which I admittedly just scanned because of the lateness of the evening.

Thank you for the input.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 14, 2009)

Always a pleasure to meet a fellow historian.  My Masters was in Museum Studies (essentially history and artifact conservation and interpretation) and my previous career was museum curator.

I can't claim the exactness of focus that you can, however, being a military historian 'hobbyist' and am more than ready to yield the field to someone whose thesis was on the battle in question.


----------



## DocWard (Apr 15, 2009)

Since it was for a minor in history, I don't believe it quite rose to the level of a "thesis." I wasn't required to defend it as one would a doctoral thesis. I was required to give an oral presentation, subject to stiff questioning by my professor, a Ph.D whose expertise was in medieval England and who would occasionally mutter in Middle English.

I believe the most interesting part of the research was reading _Gesta Henrici Quinti_, or "The Life of Henry the Fifth" translated, of course. The book was hidden in my college's library, and it seemed, surprisingly, that I was the first student in many years to pull it out. There was another contemporary chronicle translated from the French, the name of which escapes me, that was helpful.

 It has been some many years since I performed that research, and while it is still a subject that fascinates me, it sounds as though you have quite the ample knowledge base. Don't rely exclusively on my memory, as it is certainly subject to fallibility.

As an aside, if I remember correctly, much of what we know about the longbow and the anatomical effects on lifelong archers is a result of the recovery of the "Mary Rose." For the non-history buffs out there, she was an English warship of Henry VIII's time, which sank during an engagement with the French in the mid 1500s, complete with a complement of archers onboard.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2009)

Speaking of the Mary Rose, a recent theory has surfaced {yeah, aquatic reference pun attack !} about how she foundered:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2882/Mary-Rose-sunk-by-French-cannonball.html

That certainly makes a deal of sense to me as I could never quite believe how she had performed so well for all those years and then was lost to foolish overloading and freak winds.


----------



## DocWard (Apr 15, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Speaking of the Mary Rose, a recent theory has surfaced {yeah, aquatic reference pun attack !} about how she foundered:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...2882/Mary-Rose-sunk-by-French-cannonball.html
> 
> That certainly makes a deal of sense to me as I could never quite believe how she had performed so well for all those years and then was lost to foolish overloading and freak winds.


 
Now that is interesting! It seems to make quite a bit of sense, given the sum of information available. Who says history is stagnant?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 15, 2009)

Exactly what I was thinking .  One of the things I use to love about my old job was that every day involved research on something - fascinating.  Just a shame the pay was so appalling .


----------



## Kajowaraku (Apr 15, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> yes, altho regarding the cheapness, it seems that there were times when it was difficult to obtain the best quality yew in sufficient quantities. Seems like the yew grown in England isn't quite as good as the yew grown in other areas, due to the weather patterns. So sometimes getting it imported in sufficient quantity was difficult, and made them more expensive.
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear more about this. I guess I kind of assumed it was obvious that modern assault rifles would have no trouble with midieval plate. If that's not always the case, it'd be interesting to hear about it.


 
Yew rods, specifically for bowyers, were actually the forced currency for the spanish paying import tax at about that time in history. Don't forget mercantilism is an English invention. As for the v-sigh, it actually dates back to hastings, where the english got vanquished, and afterwards the archers got their drawing fingers cut of to prevent them from taking up arms again. The v-sign was basicly a way of showing combativeness, whilst expressing sentiments "upyoursism". Also the main reason the English won over the superiour force was the same as why the Flemish beat he French in 1302... The French lords were so confident of their superiority they arrived at the battlefield in relatively small groups, and for the most part just rode out to meet those "english peasants" and "show them" . Of course, 50 well armed and trained knights will seriously get in trouble if thousands of archers release a simultanious volley, especially with the longbow (range & stopping power). On top of that, it is highly likely this battle saw the first application of the ribauld ( a type of cannon) in a battle, by the English. Wouldn't have been terribly great versus 35000 french, but at least it would scare the digested onions out of them.

With the flemish the swampy underground and local knowledge of the territory made the difference, but the bow was also employed effectively as a weapon versus heavily armoured knights. Note that the french had to scale a hill with very muddy ground before they could reach the english, so the charges would have been seriously hampered, slowed, and terribly tiring for man and beast. Even if they got near the English, they would have been spent.

Right, i could yap some more about this all, but it's been a while since i studied that specific period in european history, so i might be a bit rusty left and right; so to avoid errors i'll leave it at this.

as fir the armour versus assaultrifle, it is somewhat amazing considering the fact cuirassiers used breastplates to protect against gunfire (much more primitive than assaultrifles) with relatively little success, so eventually the practice of donning plate was abandoned entirely (well, in real battles at least). Taking into consideration what makes the kinetic energy of a bullet on impact we see the following things: the Energy = (Mass of the projectile (in kg) multiplied by the speed to the second power) divided by 2.
Old guns had slower projectiles but with higher mass. Modern assaultrifles fire high velocity rounds, but alot lighter. So technically, since speed is alot more influential on the total energy released on impact, modern weapons ought to be more efficient versus armor. One thing that comes to mind is mass density of steel armour versus lead ammo. Using steel ammo would almost certainly pierce modern armor (let's not start with taking deflection into consideration, that would REALLY take us too far). What makes light AR ammo less effective over range is exactly the lack of mass though. Drag slows the rounds down alot faster, thus making the round loose speed, and since mass is low: penetrationpower will decline rapidly.

anyway, this being said i'll get back to my coffee. 

interesting topic btw.


----------



## Bikewr (Apr 20, 2009)

I know our .223 "patrol rifles" easily walk through the sheet-steel holders for the targets on our range....About 3/16" cold-rolled.

Most medieval plate was quite light; the best was laminated and recent X-rays of some later-period "proof' breastplates indicate a third piece of steel sandwiched between the two outer pieces.
Of course, this stuff was the best available, and could not be afforded by common soldiers.   It was also heavier...

Making and shooting replica "warbows" from that period is very popular in the primitive archery community; there's standing threads on the subject on the Primitive Archer bulletin board:

http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=128ieeafb885to28e7j3mlt5v7&board=19.0

Sort of the high point of archery in warfare; still of great interest.

Replica arrows (fashioned from recovered remnants; they don't hold up well) are generally of birch, a heavy wood for arrows to enhance penetration.   Heavy fletching is needed to stabilize the heavy arrow, and is usually tied on.     Well-made, they are quite attractive.   Naturally, with huge numbers needed for a campaign, I imagine the cottage-industry makers took shortcuts occasionally...
It was said that an English archer "Holds four-and-twenty Frenchmen in his belt"......


----------

