This man has the warmth of a grandfather and the grin of the Grim Reaper himself.

@calgacusofcaledonia

11 ай бұрын

Yup…gotta bit of a dark malicious streak in him.

@deed5811

10 ай бұрын

An entertaining duality and I'm here for it!

Steel technology has improved quite a lot. I'm a bladesmith, I can forge swords and heat-treat them about RC50 or higher without worrying about the blades cracking easilly under stress. But I don't have to test every new chunk of steel, worry about silicon inclusions everywhere (literally sand in the steel!) or do extensive forging from thick chunks just to ensure the steel I've using is relatively homogenous and has no "air pockets" in it, all the while worrying about cold shuts, steel bits getting folded into without welding properly and all the rest. The Medieval armourer had all that to worry about, and even good armours might have several potential failure spots. You don't see many cracked armour pieces for a reason- after every battle scavengers picked everything up and sold them to local metalworkers- iron and steel were valuable and the local smith was the original recycler!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, that's amazing - brilliant! Love the recycling bit too. Did you know that in medieval times, they also graded armour by crossbow bolt proof, crossbow bolt dent, crossbow bolt pierce, which must have been the forerunner of the pistol ball proofing mark, but of course it only guarantees that part of that one specific piece of armour being proofed. 😉 Thanks for watching !

@BlacksmithBets

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad that's amazing, thank you for adding this comment. Love this channel!

@whosthetank777

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad was there a word for this crossbow-proofing? a term of some sort

@WildBillCox13

2 жыл бұрын

I would like to suggest that superstition held sway over technique until the arrival of large scale processing and that of more accurate forms of testing and proofing in the 19th century.

@WildBillCox13

2 жыл бұрын

Remember those woodcuts showing the tengu assisting Muramasa?

Having seen this and other KZread videos, one has to ask the question: why did 5,000 archers at Agincourt fire potentially 100,000+ arrows at the French if they could not expect to inflict damage to the charging knights? I only have three possible answers. 1) Arrows had worked well at Crecy in the past so they should work again. 2) The real hope was that enough horses would be injured or killed to break the charge and throw many of the knights from their horses. When a horse went down in a charge one of several things could happen: a)the rider could be thrown and injured; b)the rider could be pinned beneath the horse and be easily killed by an enemy soldier with a dagger to his vulnerable places in the armor; c)the rider and horse could be run over and further injured or kicked to death by the following horses; d)a pileup of several horses and riders could occur, like on our modern auto racetracks; e)if the rider was thrown free from the horse, he was usually momentarily stunned which may allow an enemy foot soldier to dispatch him. 3) The archers on the flanks were probably able to focus more level shots at both the exposed parts of the horses and the joints in the armor attachment of the knights, as they had been training since childhood with the bow. Please reply if you think any of this is valid.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Marty, yes, all very valid points and ones that I've covered in other Q&A's which basically all point to the fact that the longbow was an extremely effective weapon, which indeed is why it was used for such a long time. In Froissarts illuminated image of Poitiers it actually shows the bowmen shooting the horses in the flank. Thank you for watching and your comment 👍🏻

@chrisgorman1652

2 жыл бұрын

Some time ago, a colleague of mine found a book on Agincourt(sp??) and the longbowmen. What surprised me was that the archers left their lines to retrieve arrows. They had short swords/daggers to finish any trapped knights (under horses) or wounded. That seems to support the idea that the mass of arrows were as much a disabling tool as a killing one. As this arrow retrieval and stabbing spree could expose the archers to being captured, the two fingered salute myth may also have some validity?

@eirikronaldfossheim

2 жыл бұрын

Most of the men-at-arms at Agincourt had dismounted. Only around 420 to 800 participated during the mounted charge, depending on the source. According to plan they numbered 1,200. The archers drove most of them off the field when they injured the horses with long range shooting long before the arrows could do any meaningful damage to the men in full plate armour. The horses were less armoured. Arrows with type 16 arrowheads (with small barbs) drove the horses made. Here is a quote from a contemporary source (not Agincourt though) "... horses in the field being wounded, or but lightly hurt with arrows, they through the great pain that upon every motion they do feel in their flesh, vein and sinews by the shaking of the arrows with their barbed heads hanging in them, do presently fall a-yerking, flinging and leaping as if they were mad, in such sort, as be in in squadron, or in troop, they do disorder one another, and never leave until they have thrown and cast their master." Sir John Smythe These are from sources on the battle of Agincourt. *"The horses were pierced by iron; the riders, turning round by means of their bridles, rushing away, fell to the ground amongst their army, and all horses who escaped drew away from the field."* Thomas Walsingham, St Albans Chronicle (c. 1420-22, Latin) "But there, the warlike bands of archers, with their strong and numerous volleys, darkened the air, shedding as a cloud laden with a shower, and intolerable multitude of piercing arrows, and *inflicting wounds on the horses, either caused the French horsemen to fall to the ground, or forced them to retreat,* and so defeated their dreadful purpose." Pseudo Elmham, Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti (c. 1446-49, Latin), Chapter 27. "... God's will, they were *forced to fall back under showers of arrows and to flee to their rearguard, save for a very few who,* although not without losses in dead and wounded, rode through between the archers and the woodlands, and save, too, of course, for the many who were stopped by the stakes driven into the ground and prevented from fleeing very far by the stinging hail of missiles shot at both horses and riders in their flight." The Gesta Henrici Quinti (c. 1417, Latin), Chapter 13. "... the admiral of France, Clignet de Brabant, Louis Bourdon and the lord of Gaule were charged to go with 1,000 crack men at arms who had the best mounts to disperse the English archers who had already engaged in combat. But at the first volley of arrows which the archers caused to rain down upon them *they turned and fled,* to their eternal shame, leaving their leaders stranded in the midst of danger with only a small number of brave hearts." The Religieux (Monk) of Saint-Denis, Histoire de Charles VI (c. 1415-22, Latin), Chapter 8. I hope that helps.

@martymm7223

2 жыл бұрын

@@eirikronaldfossheim Thank you.

@martymm7223

2 жыл бұрын

@@chrisgorman1652 Thanks

On the English Side of my family, we still practice Longbow on Sundays. One time I had brought my Mongolian Recurve with me and we started having a talk. It was explained to me the following by my great uncle on why the longbow was used in Europe to such effect. 1. A moderately skille labourer can carve a workable longbow in about a day, and the Strings can be made by the bunch. Thus, the longbow was economical and quick to produce on an almost industrial scale. This was the most crucial bit because killing a man with an arrow is much more like hitting him repeatedly, not like in the movies where one shot is one guaranteed kill. Thus the more bowmen you have, the more viable archery is as a combat strategy, whether the opponent is armored or unarmored. 2. Most European Infantry had armor and/or shields of some sort. This is mostly due to the fact that European terrain is not very favorable to light, quickly maneuvering fighters such as Mongols or other Eastern Armies. Thus, the bow needs to adapt to this reality. The longbow thus is designed to be a very heavy draw that acts less like a pure piercing weapon and more like a bombardment of blunt force trauma that eventually overhwelms and can kill or incapacitate an enemy. This ties back to point 1 because while the longbow is reliable, if there is an issue with the bow such as limb twisting or the wood cracking, it's not a big deal because so many have been made already or another can be made very quickly. 3. I am not entirely sure about this one, but it at least makes some sense to me from an engineering point of view. Because of the way energy is transferred from yhe limbs of the bow to the string, to the arrow, the longbow, in which the string does not touch the limbs on return to true aside from the notches, can fire a very heavy arrow with maximal efficiency instead of allowing that energy to return into the limbs. Thus longbows could fire very heavy arrows with great momentum allowing for the blunt force trauma inflicted to be maximized. That is my current view on the real application of the longbow in medieval warfare and as such it doesn't matter if the arrow penetrates the plate because by striking its target with force it is already doing what it is designed and intended to do. T. Traditional archery nerd.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, that's great, thanks for comment 👍🏻

@thodan467

11 ай бұрын

1 the wood neede AFAIK to dry 2 Most european Infantry from the Hoplites to the Landsknechts had armour of sorty from cuirass to brigandine and halfplate The Maghyars were a very fast manoeuvring army of horsemen till Otto the Great broke them on the Lechfeld. We had no society to produce horse archers but light cav like hobelars and Jinettes did exist in the time

@dariuscroxton1039

11 ай бұрын

Interesting. But it would be made better if you re-read what you wrote. And you shoot or loose an arrow, not fire. But a good read non the less.

Actually, the arrow that struck the young Henry V broke only after surgeons tried removing it. The bodkin point arrowhead slipped the shaft and remained lodged within the skull. A blacksmith named John Bradmore designed a device that could thread or essentially drill itself into the metal so that it could be gripped for extraction.

I still couldn't imagine walking through the sheer amount of arrow fire at Agincourt that must have been brutal and exhausting even if it wasn't the deadliest part of the battle.

@JohnSmith-fv7gi

Жыл бұрын

I mean 5,000 archers all firing an arrow every few seconds. You've got to advance across a field with 50,000 arrows coming at you every minute. Some of them are going to find their mark.

@GhilieDawg

Жыл бұрын

The point of the arrows weren't meant to kill when fighting heavy infantry or Calvary it was meant to terrify and annoy the enemy. Skirmish tactics also used by riflemen in the Napoleonic era where they would shoot the enemy and harass them then run away to let the main infantry take off the targets. Chances are you wouldn't even be one of the men walking through those arrows. Chances are you'd be dead or sick by the time you'd even reach combat let alone if you even survived to live that long in the first place. And the arrows Aren't exactly fired at a correct position they could hit right overhead or directly or just infront of the targets. Even then arrows we're pretty easy to avoid by just literally moving forward. same with modern era machine guns that are made to suppress and harass arrows were just annoying weapons of war against men who were fully armored up and ready for them. Chances of a arrow even piercing you're soft spots are so slim based off it's randomly fired. The most dangerous parts would be exposing the backside where the armor is the weakest as most being strap on it was easier to hit a target from behind then it was to Pierce from the front.

@GhilieDawg

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnSmith-fv7giOf course they'd find their target but the chance of it even directly hitting you in a weak area is so small that it's best advantage was to be used against fleshy targets and used as annoying tools that shake you're armor and vibrate you as you walk or run to aggravate you.

I imagine that whilst arrows couldn't penetrate well made plate, they'd be plenty effective at killing or panicking horses, and that the majority of casualties could well come from knights being unexpectedly dismounted or crushed by their own beasts. In addition to that it goes without saying that most levies or footmen would not have been equipped with a full harness, and bodkin points typically fair better against padded gambesons or mail.

@thodan467

11 ай бұрын

I would very like to know your sources

@thepotatoincident3593

8 ай бұрын

@@thodan467 i suppose we could test it if you've got a few horses

@fiddlesticks7245

7 ай бұрын

@@thepotatoincident3593 lmao

Kevin, these are great videos. I think your answer is the best I've heard, and it accords with what contemporary chroniclers of the 100 yrs war (e.g., Froissart) and modern historians (like Keegan) have made of medieval battles. Longbow arrows probably couldn't reliably penetrate plate armour at normal engagement ranges. But they didn't HAVE to. As an artilleryman, I know that HE shells usually can't penetrate tanks. But they can damage tracks, strip off optics and radio antennae, force the crew to 'button up' and impair their vision (i.e., raise the bevor and lower the visor, right?), damage more lightly armoured targets (enemy archers, crossbowman, more lightly armoured footmen), slow or even stop an advance, force the enemy to dig in, wreck vehicles that aren't as heavily armoured as tanks...and every now and then, a lucky shot will find a weak spot and take down even a tank. Arrow storms would be unimaginably terrible to cavalry and footmen alike. Imagine trying to control a cavalry formation under that kind of bombardment! You've made another video where you describe firing blunted arrows at recreationists wearing modern reproductions of plate armour, and you described how you were able to find weak points, and even knock one of the fellows back on his heels with a direct hit to the helm. A 60-gram arrow fired from a war bow at ~64 m/s will have a kinetic energy of about 122 joules. This is roughly equivalent to a solid punch from a Karate or Tae Kwon Do practitioner, and having taken a few of those (even through serious padding) I know that it's enough to rock you back on your heels even if it doesn't hit something vital. Showers of arrows would be a terrible blow even if they had no points and hit nothing important. You commented that if armour didn't work, knights wouldn't have worn it. That argument works both ways, and is exemplified in the profession that you've spent so many years emulating: if longbow arrows didn't work on the battlefield, then ten generations of English kings wouldn't have maintained the yeomanry that won so many wars.

@KoishiVibin

5 ай бұрын

...well yes. But shower a lesser infantry formation... Even if the longbow not work against man in suit, man wearing chain, brig, how well does he do? Arrow punches shield, chestplate... And also, consider, consider! Missile not win battles at all!

Another consideration, if longbows pentrated armour so easily, why did both sides use it in the Wars of the Roses, facing a weapon they knew very well? Thank you for your learned opinion!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed Fred, thank you for watching 👍🏻

@Melanrick

2 жыл бұрын

Well, chainmail was easily pierced by arrows and crossbows, and people still wore them into battles. It could not hold against a spear from horseback, it could not hold against a axe and even the shields would break when facing a axe. But still, people used chainmail. Why not, then, not use chainmail when going into battle? Especially in the desert, where is hot and you need mobility, less weight and etc... Well, the answer is: Its the best they have and it will still protect against most strikes and most weapons. To put into perspective, plate armor lost everytime the opponent went against it with a hammer, a club or any other form of concussive weapon. It really lost its value and worse, more often than not they would be stuck inside their armors with broken bones and it would take a blacksmith to take them out, if the metal would not crush their heads or bodies. But still, they used armors.

@predwin1998

2 жыл бұрын

@@Melanrick I think you underestimate the value of armour even against weapons the likes of warhammers. Sure, a warhammer had the *potential* to severely injure or even kill a man in full armour, but that would still require a very good hit against a well-trained and resisting target. And in your examples of someone being stuck inside their armour with broken bones, assuming this happened as commonly as you state, do you really think those men would have been better off not wearing their armour? It sounds a bit like the case in WWI (I think) where issueing better helmets for the infantry resulted in a massive rise in head injuries which seemed counterproductive, until they realised that the helmets allowed for those men to survive a shot to the head and be listed as an injury rather than a casualty.

@thodan467

11 ай бұрын

@@Melanrick the crusaders thought and experienced different, there are descriptions of knights fighting pincushioned with arrows . Yes shields would break , they were often build as light as psiible to be discardable. Plate may loose, if hit right but human flesh would loose more

@KoishiVibin

5 ай бұрын

@@Melanrick Actually, no. on both account. Even chain armor, it work well against arrow at reasonable range. Problem is as range close, because arrow bad ballistic body.

I know this is a bit off topic but I am so happy to find this channel. My all time favorite video of yours was the one from over a decade ago with the matchlock musket. It was so fascinating watch the whole process from putting the powder in the pan, putting the powder down the barrel, the steel ball, the broken paper, pushing it down with the scouring stick, preparing the match cord, ensuring the burning tip can reach the pan, taking aim, and firing.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

That's great Kevin, if I'd have known then what I know now I wouldn't have sold my muskets before coming over to Canada. Still, my son has a nice matchlock carbine, so I might explore it when I'm over in the UK in the spring.....stay tuned. Thanks for watching. 👍🏻

I have watched a few videos of people making plate armor true to the times and basically it is pretty effective at resisting arrows. That said, arrows could kill horses, non armored troops, and generally be a real pain to stay vigilant with your armor on. Great Q&A session. Thanks for sharing.

@aburoach9268

Жыл бұрын

when you say plate armor, are you referring to the breast plate ? because I don't think limb plates and gauntlets provide equal protection against longbow arrows ?

@davidc6510

Жыл бұрын

@@aburoach9268 yes I meant breast plate armor for sure. Thanks

@thodan467

11 ай бұрын

@@aburoach9268 Not very likely, but likely AFAIK enough

Great discussion! There's lots of focus on the battle of Agincourt, with specific parameters of this battle. bow vs plate armor has been discussed from the bronze age until the replacement of firearms. i hope we do more testing with other battles in history of this topic. examples include Magyar bows against Hungarian plate armor, Turkish bows against crusade french armor, mongolian bows against georgian armor..etc

@2bingtim

2 жыл бұрын

Love your work.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching, I've just checked out your channel and subbed 👍🏻

@HistoricalWeapons

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad love your content too and subbed

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

@@HistoricalWeapons Cheers buddy

@Paul.M.

2 жыл бұрын

Could you elaborate on the Magyar bows against Hungarian armor? It seems you're giving historic examples, but the magyars are the hungarians, so why would they use their own type of bow against their own type of armor?

I think the main point should be... Not everyone was wearing plate armour, only a small percentage were. And the arrows can easily go through chain and other armour. 😉 Fantastic vid as always Kevin sir. 👍

@johnforgy4075

2 жыл бұрын

@@rexbarron4873 Interesting. What are the six battles? I am familiar with three - Patay, Formigny, and Castillon. Thanks.

@Steve_Coates

2 жыл бұрын

Good quality mail over a gambeson will stop most arrows or at least reduce penetration to a non disabling wound. Cheap mail of the era tended to have larger diameter rings which could burst with less energy applied and even the best quality mail may have a few badly riveted rings that would burst easily. Of course even a well equipped man in a good quality hauberk, gambeson, helmet, aventail etc still had vulnerable areas.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

You're right Jeff 👍🏻 Thanks for watching again.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Rex, thanks for watching. You might be interested in the the last part of Hundred Years War series I'm working on (it's not been filmed yet), and is not quite as cut and dried as people might think. 👍🏻

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, well said 👍🏻

Great answer! We Anglophone folks have a great love for archery and legends on the longbow. When it comes up in my discussions, I don't answer with a direct answer, but a few simple facts: 1. French men-at-arms managed to reach the English line at Agincourt. 2. Plate armour hadn't reached its zenith circa 1415. 3. It wasn't longbows that ended the use of plate armour, but firearms.

@geoffboxell9301

Жыл бұрын

Even firearms were not that good against plate: in the English Civil War you only bought front and back plate that had a proofing mark on it. The proofing mark being a dent where a pistol ball had struck without penetrating the armour.

You, sir, are a national treasure and my spirit animal. Many happy returns and thanks so very much for all that you have done and continue to do for history and traditional archery. You have a life-long fan here in Texas.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, thank you Kenneth, much appreciated!

Anyone else here after seeing Kevin’s longbow and musket ads on Instagram? Those are probably the only ads that I will stop to watch every time I see them. Such an entertaining and informative presenter; I have no idea how he doesn’t have five times as many subscribers. As an American whose family originated in England, I find these historical videos endlessly fascinating. Thank you, Mr. Hicks, for sharing your passion with us and giving us a glimpse into the world of many of our ancestors in a fun and interesting way.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers buddy, there's lots more to come 👍🏻

@STSGuitar16

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad So glad to hear that, I just found your channel a few days ago and have gone through almost all of your videos now haha. Love your stuff! Have you ever thought about trying to collaborate on a video with the Modern History TV channel here on youtube? You both seem to share a lot of the same interests with medieval history, and you both have distinct strong-suits that are different from one another. Combining his and your knowledge and working together on some videos would be absolutely incredible content! Many thanks for what you do.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

@@STSGuitar16 That's an interesting thought 👍🏻

This has become my new favourite KZread channel. Thanks so much for your wisdom and insight!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

So glad! Thanks 👍🏻

For the past couple of years, I've been scouring the KZreads for more Kevin Hicks videos. Your channel has satisfied the itch every week. Love the channel, Sir Hicks! You rock, my man!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, thanks! That's so much appreciated 👍🏻

Thanks Kevin, been waiting for your next ‘instalment’ I wasn’t disappointed, nice one Sir 🏹

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Yay! Glad you enjoyed it

Yes, I totally agree. The most recent test I've seen was on Todd's channel. He got someone to make a breast plate as close to correct as possible. He had someone make a couple of different arrowhead types. Even to the point of having bodkins that were plain iron/steel (they were never sure back then, were they?) and bodkins that had carbon on the tip to harden them. That Yankee bloke, Toby something or other, was there as an expert to oversee the experiment and Joe Gibbs shot the arrows with a 160# 'war bow' As you note. arrows shattered. Arrows glanced off. The best, with the hardened bodkin, and a direct straight on shot, still didn't penetrate. I think a lot of what the bowmen were doing was similar to a GPMG or squad automatic (think Bren) is used for today. Suppression. Being on the receiving end of an arrow storm would be distracting. Hard to mount an effective assault in the face of that. Of course, horses were targets and I'm certain that a number of arrows found gaps and weak points in armor What a lot of people don't get is that you don't necessarily have to kill or wound the enemy to win the battle, yeah?

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely well said 👍🏻 Are you an ex-squaddie by any chance 😉

@vigunfighter

2 жыл бұрын

​@@thehistorysquad Can neither confirm, nor deny... ;) Am enjoying your unique take on history. Look forward to watching more of your work.

@eirikronaldfossheim

2 жыл бұрын

That breastplate was made of modern AISI 1050 steel with a fracture toughness of 320 kJ/m2.[1] Medieval air-cooled medium carbon steel had a fracture toughness of 240 to 260 kJ/m2.[2] Slag and manganese is responsible for that difference.[3] They tested an analogy for medieval slack-quenched medium carbon steel armour.[4] The smith attempted to case-carburize the wrought iron arrowheads but didn't succeed.[5] Wrought iron have a fracture toughness of 120 to 150 kJ/m2 in comparison.[6] The breastplate was an outlier at 2.5 mm. Only the top of helmets, the front on visors and the center of breastplates were 2.5 mm thick. The side of helmets, breastplates and limb armour is a lot thinner.[7] We know that armour thickness is enhanced by 1.6. In other words, twice the thickness takes 3 times the kinetic energy for penetration to occur.[8] Example: if we say it takes 45 Joule to penetrate a 1 mm plate made of mild steel with a fracture toughness of 235 kJ/m2, then a 2 mm plate should approximately take 135 Joule. 45*2^1.6 = 136.4 Joule. The armour they tested was an outlier both in terms of steel quality[9] and thickness. 31.6 % of armour we have from this time period was made of wrought iron with a fracture toughness of 120-150 kJ/m2. 30.4 % is made of low carbon steel with a fracture toughness of 180-210 kJ/m2. Just around 11.2 % have a fracture toughness of 320 kJ/m2 or higher. Air-cooled medium carbon steel with a fracture toughness of 240-260 kJ/m2, the steel quality they claimed they were testing but didn't, make up 26.8 % of surviving armour.[9] We know as a fact that arrows will penetrate a 1.8 mm thick platee with a fracture toughness of 235 kJ/m2, as demonstrated by Tod. When steel quality goes down, the thickness the arrow can penetrate goes up. The most reliable sources we have on the battle of Agincourt, Gesta Henrici Quinti, an eye witness of the battle, specifically said “Sed Gallorum nobilitas que plena fronte prius accesserat, ut de prope coniunctionem venerat, vel timore telorum, quorum adversitas eos ruptabat per latera et umbracula cassidum, vel..” In English: "… *from fear of the missiles which by their very force* [lit. hostility] *pierced* [ruptured, broke asunder, burst through] *the sides and visors* [lit. covers] *of their helmets* ..." [10] The archers on the wings at the battle of Agincourt shot arrows at point blank range into large groups of densely packed men-at-arms in front of the English battle from 50 to 100 yards away. The arrows came down at around a 14 degrees angel and enfilade them and struck the highest part - the helmets, necks, armpits and shoulders. That's where most of the arrows landed and that's why they died. The head is the most vulnerable part on the body. [1] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, appendix 6, page 941 and: qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c19c5d63b74f107fb88b687d3ab90081 [2] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 942 [3] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 900-901 and 941 [4] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 942 [5] The original video at 28:57. The smith: “heated to 850 °C and quenched in a compound of organic material like hoof, horn and sugar and that forms the layer of carbon.” American Society of Metals vol. 4, p. 142 have this table on how it is done: 2 hrs, 870°C 0.64 mm, 900°C 0.76 mm, 925°C 0.89 mm. 4 hrs, 870°C 0.89 mm, 900°C 1.07 mm, 925°C 1.27 mm 8 hrs, 870°C 1.27 mm, 900°C 1.52 mm, 925°C 1.8 mm 12 hrs, 870°C 1.55 mm, 900°C 1.85 mm, 925°C 2.21 mm 16 hrs, 870°C 1.8 mm, 900°C 2.13 mm, 925°C 2.54 mm 20 hrs, 870°C 2.01 mm, 900°C 2.39 mm, 925°C 2.84 mm 24 hrs, 870 °C 2.18 mm, 900 °C 2.62 mm, 925 °C 3.10 mm 30 hrs, 870 °C 2.46 mm, 900 °C 2.95 mm, 925 °C 3.48 mm 36 hrs, 870 °C 2.74 mm, 900 °C 3.20 mm, 925 °C 3.81 mm [6] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 941 [7] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 916-917 and Longbow by Hardy page 233-234 [8] The Knight and the Blast Furnace, page 928 and 935 [9] qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-103d1011937d5410ef64a028b635f09b [10] The Battle of Agincourt, Sources and interpretations by Anne Curry p. 36.

@bobito8997

2 жыл бұрын

Another point I noted from Todd's video was when Toby Capwell said he'd been shot with arrows while wearing armour and though they didn't penetrate, they really hurt. He then said that those arrows weren't anything like as heavy as the ones they were using for the experiment that day. So it's fair to say that while you might not be killed by a heavy arrow shot from a 160lbs bow, you'd certainly know you'd been hit.

I'm very glad i found this channel. Very interesting topics presented in an engaging manner

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoy it! Thanks very much 👍🏻

Great stuff!

Love the Q&A - good job Kevin.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers John - we're having a blast!

The battle of Patay and the opening of the battle of Verneuil demonstrate that without preparation, longbowmen are very vulnerable to cavalry charge when they don’t have time or or the correct terrain to prepare stakes or pits.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely, that's for a future video 👍🏻

Love your channel

So here is the thing, we have tapestry works showing arrows piercing plate armor. We have accounts of the time of arrows piercing armor. We have first hand accounts of medieval battles (mainly on the hundred years wars) that saw arrows going through that, we even have, for instance, a whole lot of text and tapestry works of even swords piercing armor and we have whole schools of medieval combat teaching how to pierce plate armor with a pointy sword. And if a man can pierce armor with a sword by the strenght of his arms, then for sure a longbow would penetrate it just fine. Now, im not saying that they would always penetrate, because even those tapestry works would show 2 arrows going through for every 10 or so that hit and would bounce off. As far as the fighting styles go, they show how to put pressure in the weak spots, such as the belly, the back, the sides, the shoulder parts of the cuirass, etc. We have to bear in mind that our steel is high tech stuff. We can actually test the molecules to see how its going to be. We know the precise amount of materials to put and the order to put it to make stronger alloys, they didint had that. They had to hammer everything. And it would take a really good armorsmith to even make a decent armor and it would still have weakspots on it. And i will give it a context: My 1065 steel Katana is of a higher grade and quality of any medieval master weaponsmith because the steel is of a higher grade, it was steel rolled, machinery pressed, instead of human hammering, the steel is made for quality, and even though it falls under the softer type of carbon steel, it is way better than their wildest dreams, so if it were to clash sword to sword, mine would break theirs in half probably always. Theirs would break first under the stress, or worse, bend.

I've been reading about the Russians using 152mm (6 inch) High Explosive Shells against Tiger Tanks during WW II. Its doubtful a HE Shell could penetrate a Tigers Armour but it proved able to kill the crew by blast alone and in some instances to physically lift the Tigers turret off the vehicle. Soviet Tank Crews were advised to keep firing at a target until it was in flames, or the turret was blown off. Later an AP round based on one used by the Navy was used and could penetrate. Anyways maybe we need to know more about what a non penetrating hit might do to the person inside Plate Armour or how frequently an aimed or lucky arrow might find its way into a small gap in the armour.

I LOVE this History Club...solid information and presentation. Skal

@thehistorysquad

9 ай бұрын

Cheers Peter 👍🏻

Yeah, I've seen the experiments of archers shooting at plate armour. So, can arrows penetrate plate armour? Probably not. Can a knight in plate armour be wounded, or even killed by an arrow? Probably. But the arrow would have to hit a weak spot (as you said), or a seam or other open place. I think you are very much correct.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Great - thanks for watching 👍🏻

@abisalpha

2 жыл бұрын

most reasonable answer to that question would be, "depends on the thickness of the plate" breastplate thickness vs limb plate thickness / also a hardened steel arrowhead vs a hardened Iron arrowhead might make a huge difference

Excellent vid as always. Not much I can add to the many excellent comments already submitted, so I will just congratulate you Kevin, on hitting your ‘first’ 10,000 subscribers! I may be slightly previous, so to speak, but you will hit the mark in the next day or so anyway 😉. Well done and thank you for all your hard work on producing one of the best channels on KZread!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, thank you! At the time of writing, we're about 22 off the 10k mark 👍🏻. I have to be honest, I'm having a blast here, talking history and archery and the feedback has been amazing. I really appreciate your support and that of all my other subscribers who comment and ask questions. Wanting to broaden out the history, over the weekend I plan to upload a film about the White Rose Resistance and the execution of the ringleaders in 1943, so stand by, and if you can spread the word as this is a topic that's particularly close to my heart, as you'll see..... I'm a bit nervous about it so I'd appreciate your thoughts when you watch it. Thanks again.

@nor0845

2 жыл бұрын

That’s it, 10k subscribers. Well done!

Fantastic as always 👌

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much 😀

Absolutely love the discussions you bring up’ it’s like the “Thinking man’s history 101” very well done kind sir’

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Haha, cheers Chris 👍🏻

I stumbled across your videos and glad I did they are awesome and very informative you have my subscription

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Awesome, thank you and welcome aboard!

Almost a Trick Question, Thousands of Slain Knights Prove this. Most people don't realise that Archers were built like Eddie Hall, Heavy manual labour from being Children + Handling Bows from Ages that would Terrify a Modern Parent. While most famous for their Long Range Skills, Imagine what Archers could do in CQB using Weapons that were little different from the Tools they had used all their lives at Home!!

I've read stories of Crusaders during the early years being veritable pin cushions because the Saracen bows couldn't penetrate the Norman maille, so the arrows lodged in the rings. And where they did penetrate, they were mostly stopped by the thick padding worn under the maille.

@Nocturne33

8 ай бұрын

How did the crusaders ever end up losing? It seems like the saracens didn't have the equipment to consistently take down the crusaders

Greetings from Texas! I started watching your videos recently, and its pushed me to buy a long bow. Now to spend the hours to really learn it. I always learn something watching you! Keep up the fine videos.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

That is awesome! So glad to hear it - enjoy your bow 👍🏻

Excellent video once again. I think one of the problems with this question, and the tests that are done off the back of it, is that people don't look at the actual deployment of archers, and concentrate so much on trying to penetrate the fronts of breastplates. However, at the successful battles were the longbow was used to great effect, Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt etc, the archers are not concentrating their arrows to the front. They are arranged to the flanks, were they can shoot into the sides of the oncoming enemy. Now, as Kevin correctly says, armour was hammered and this would leave weak spots, but, although it is thickest at the front, it has to taper towards the sides in order to fit and not be cumbersome. Therefore at this point there are vulnerabilities, as there have to be gaps to allow for movement of limbs, arm holes and the like. Such areas would be covered by mail and gambeson, but, as the first arrow in Tod's experiment showed, this could be defeated and the arrow head penetrate to a good depth. In contrast, if you look at the battle of Verneuile, the archers had no time to get to their normal positions and could only shoot from the front, not the sides. The result was that the cavalry ran them down. So shooting to the front seems foolhardy, as you are attacking where the armour is thickest. Not only that, but it also needs to be remembered that an arrow head would not actually need to penetrate very far to cause lethal damage. How many knights, I wonder, actually died of what we now call Tension Pneumothorax - that is, where there is penetration of the lung and where the air within it begins to seep into the space between the lung and the ribcage? We know that such an injury can (and has indeed been) lethal within 10 mins, as the sheer air pressure in the wrong place both crushes the lung, and as a result, also does likewise to the heart, which stops it from being able to beat. Imagine a knight coming toward an army and facing a hail of arrows from his flank, and one of them hits home under his armpit, the arrowhead piercing through to allow the air to seep from his lung. And imagine how desperate the man would become as the very life was crushed from him and he died encased in his armour and not able to breathe. This is an aspect that I think gets missed, as there are those on both sides of the 'longbow vs armour' who become so utterly consumed by their views that they become blinkered to the possibility that they might both be right, in their own way. (might also help that I'm also a medic as well as a longbow shooter!) - and of course, as others including yourself have pointed out, few folks in reality would have been able to afford the best of the armour - the rest had to rely on munition grade plate or just mail and gambeson alone...which arrows can penetrate!

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hey Andrew, great comment - thank you for sharing your views . You might be interested to take a look at the Battle of Poitiers from the manuscript of the Froissart Chronicles, it's one of the few contemporary images shows the bowmen shooting from the flanks 👍🏻

@andrewrice2376

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad Cheers Kevin, glad you liked it. I shall take a look at that, thanks :)

@colsandannie

Ай бұрын

❤

There is a video on YT about a reconstruction of a greathorn siege crossbow. 1257 pounds of draw weight I believe, but almost 50cm of draw length. Thing shoots a 300+ gram bolt at between 50 and 60 m/s to the tune of 430 or somesuch joules. If any bow of the era could pierce pate, a bolt fired from that thing with a proper tempered bodkin head would probably do the job. Even if it didn't, it would probably knock you to the ground, but I'm positive it would go through most plate armors.

Im working in warwickshire at the minute and decided to go for a after work jog to the village of Radway to visit the battlefield of edgehill today. Poped into the church at radway to see the little exhibit they have about the battle and low and behold who should appear on the screen there shwoing arms and equipment..... the man the myth the legend....... kevin hicks! Small world ;)

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hahaha, you're in my old back yard! The Castle is an excellent pub if ever you should need a good meal and a pint. 😉

Your show is awesome great job, keep up the great work.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Larry, will do!

I remember watching one of your videos where you described an experiment you did, using blunts against two very brave plate armored subjects. That tells me that even if the arrow point did not penetrate, the shock of the impact on the body or head was often times going to be enough to make the target a casualty, particularly at point blank ranges. Besides that, even if the enemy is armored in plate cap-a-'pie, the knowledge that some ruffian was going to hit him at least once must surely make his martial mind wander a bit.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Well said Boyd, thanks for watching.

@boydgrandy5769

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad Always a pleasure, Kevin.

I always thought it depended on the plate in question. Before standardisation they would all be fairly different, but then it seems to me an academic question because whatever it was the archers did, it seemed to work so long as they had time to prepare.

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely 👍🏻

I like the stories from 'Gerald of Wales ' and the dwarf elm bows pinning knights to their horses .

An excellent video, and for anyone who wants to see some testing done on this very subject I recommend the video from Tod’s Workshop (arrows vs armour)

Great discussion, I my opinion you are correct arrows main purpose has usually been to aim at weak points, the men who fought in The battle of Agincourt were well versed in aiming at the weak points in Armour, which could bring a knight down, couple that with exhaustion, rain soaked muddy conditions, when the archer attacked hand to hand their weapons were usually dagger, war hammer and the like specifically designed to go for weak spots.

There was an old BBC (I think) film were they shot at various targets with long bows and crossbows. The longbow arrow on a 16th century Spanish breast plate with a bodkin point literally drilled a hole through the breast plate and penetrated it. They filmed that with a fairly high speed camera and then ran it slowly so you could see it rotate and bore through the plate.. Therefore I think it could have happened...

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Fair enough, quite possible then I guess, I'm just speaking from my own experiences. Thanks for watching 👍🏻

If plate armor was pretty safe, what about saucepan armor or cutlery armor?

@N3mdraz

Жыл бұрын

And what about sechuan armor made of hot sauce?

Thank you

It is a great discussion.

I think you made a valid point in another video about the effectiveness of the arrows on soldiers and horses. Plate arguably did not have to be penetrated for the effects of the arrows to manouever men into killing zones, or force them to fall, or crush each other or cause general panic. Also even plate armoured knights had some gaps and these arrows could find those gaps rendering the knight ineffective. The arrows certainly caused a great deal of harm to other men at arms who might be only partially armoured. I am really enjoying your videos.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

That's a great comment Kelly, thanks. I'm glad you're enjoying the vids - stay tuned, there'll be plenty more 👍🏻

Modern day plate carrier vests are pretty impenetrable to shrapnel and small arms fired straight-on, but soldiers still sometimes get hit in vulnerable areas just because of the law of averages and the amount of lead and ordnance being thrown around. I always imagined arrows and plate armor to be the same - on paper, you're practically invincible, but war is chaos and arrows are cheap. If we shoot a thousand arrows at the enemy and kill or disable five of them, that cost them a lot more than it cost us. Plate mail had fewer weak points but the principle seems similar.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Nice comment Molly, thanks 👍🏻

Thank you for your history lessons. Your videos are a pleasure to watch. Have you done a video on William Marshal?

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

Not yet! But I will do 👍🏻

love your channel

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it, thanks for the visit 👍🏻

Kevin, have you read Robert Hardy's Longbow book? In appendix 3 they discuss armour penetration. One thing I didnt know was that back and breast and helms were thicker than leg and arm armour. I'm pretty sure that having a leg or arm skewered would remove you from play. There's one account of a knight being pinned to his saddle through both thighs. Ouch! Another excellent video. 😊

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I read it a long time ago and I remember the story, it was the Normans crossing the river Usk in Wales I believe. I'll cover it one of these days for sure. 👍🏻

Interesting as always, Mr Hicks! Do you ever do live Q&A sessions?

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Not yet, but maybe one day

I've seen several longbow vs armor tests, and the part i feel lile they never take into account is the effect of volley fire. One arrow might bounce off. 6 thousand incoming, it's far more likely to find holes, gaps in the armor. Not to mention the reputation of what archers do to a cavalry charge. All men weren't head to toe plate either.

Very interesting Histories about Bows. Only once i was able to shoot an Arrow at a Medevial Festival (Austria) and on an other i could wear a helmet and a sword..just wearing not reanacting..but i love it when they some Reanactment groups are showing swordfights on a stage. Dangerous but cool. Some are very heavy. It is great just to hold them whenever you get the Chance.

Petrating plate armour is very unlikely indeed. But there are unarmoured men around you, soldiers with less good armour, horses, and just the sheer amount of arrows raining down. That has an impact. And if all your unarmoured friends start falling dead or wounded, horses panicking because arrows are hitting them too, it would take a lot of balls to keep fighting even when you're wearing full plate armour.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely 👍🏻. Thanks for watching.

Thanks Kevin. I've seen KZread videos which support your conclusion that arrows couldn't penetrate plate armour. Fascinating subject.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers, you're welcome 👍🏻

This guy needs to a interview with Lars Anderson. That would be a fruitful discussion and we would all love it.

Can you make some content about the construction of longbows, or possibly the different crossbows? Or maybe the arrows or bolts themselves? Watching from Kentucky and love the channel.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Casey, I've done one on a lightweight and heavyweight longbow, in the Archery/Medieval playlist. I'll do one one day on the construction of arrows as I make my own, but I'm not a bowyer 👍🏻

The jammed armor story is interesting. I've seen examples of something similar happening to modern tanks. A round gets stuck between the turret mantlet and the hull seizing the gun in place. There's a couple of tanks that were captured this way after the crews abandoned them.

The arms race between armor and weapons to defeat it was really something With the bowmen becoming prominent on the battlefield the armor keep getting improved from chainmail to plate with heat treating made it stronger and lighter But the knight`s horse was very vulnerable to the arrows and a knight without his horse was nothing but a foot soldier which evened the field Maybe that`s why the English knights fought on foot at Agincourt instead on horse back because the horse was so vulnerable to arrows ?

@thodan467

11 ай бұрын

More likely they needed a stable line of heavy foot, knights fighting on foot was very common

Excellent analysis. The thump of an arrow must have been painful too. Most knight or men at arms would could have had concussions, massive bruising, internal bleeding or even broken bones from the arrows.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely, have you seen my 'optimum distance to fell a knight' video? 😉

@alexanderwaite9403

2 жыл бұрын

@@thehistorysquad Not yet but I will! I remember that Mike Loaded did an excellent video on the war bow and how the impact was that of a .357 bullet!

There had to be weak spots, like armpit, elbow, knee, groin area where you couldn't tightly fit plate to plate and had to rely on chain mail. And visor slit was always tradeoff. Too wide and arrow or sword can pass, and if it is too tight, you do not see where you walking. If archers were protected by stakes and pole weapons they could seek those weak spots on 10-20 paces, especially if most knights would be unhorsed by then.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely. It's called shooting for the void 👍🏻 Thanks again for watching.

@secario2135

2 жыл бұрын

english longbowmen shoot the horses not the knight

My grandfather fought at Agincourt he told us that they bounced off the armoured knights.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

LOL

@paulspice4717

Жыл бұрын

Your grandfather fought at Agincourt? How old are you?

@bertiewooster3326

Жыл бұрын

@@paulspice4717 I'm 47 years x 10 plus the sq root of 56 x 45

Years ago (before the internet) I watched very thorough tests and trials about this question. The best penetration they managed, and at much closer range than a battlefield, was about that centimeter Kevin Hicks mentioned. It was enough to start penetrating flesh but non-lethal. The most significantly more effective arrowhead was a bodkin with the tip filed back to have a flat face of about 1/8" square. The really pointy ones buckle up before they get through. The squared one punches without buckling. Try it one the workbench with a tool punch and hammer. All said and done it's always been a question of no purpose regarding a combined arms battlefield.

So interesting..I'm a big fan..

i heared in far past in a documentary, that crossbows were able. but just after they got invented and strong enough that you needed a crank for them... . till bows and longbows were used, they werent able against a full plate armour

Thanks for the mention Kevin, made my day did that. It's sometimes surprises me how obsessed people are with this idea of penetrating plate armour, especially during the goldenera of the golden age of the English longbow, the 14th century, when full plate armour wasn't actually that commonplace and typically only covered the head and chest, that leaves lots of other areas to shoot at, it's almost as if people don't think longbows could be accurate enough to hit specific targets in specific areas, like the arm or the lleg or groin, and let's not forget the Knights horse. Anyway, another awesome video 🙏

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers Shaun, and thanks for the heads up with regard to the William Marshall story 👍🏻

@2bingtim

2 жыл бұрын

A good/excellent archer could be very accurate at close ranges with longbows, able to hit small spots sniping & there would be a reasonable proportion of that ability. The best were selected for these campaigns. The rest good enough to shoot en masse to pepper the area the French advanced though. You can imagine the competition/skills/advice of better archers passing on tips to lesser archers having considerable effect on competency over a campaign.

@blindarchershaunhenderson3769

2 жыл бұрын

@@2bingtim I totally agree, but I believe, from personal experience, even an average English longbowmen engaged on military service would be expected to be able to hit shield sized targets at 100 paces with at least 50% accuracy. As for the encouragement from more experienced archers, I think archers employed on millitary campaigns would know each other very well and would have become the original "band of brothers"

Spicy content keep it up

I agree. But next question is, why were longbows so effective in warfare pre 1400 if they couldn't pierce armour? I think we can say they were effective in the early 100 years war given the make up of the English army and the focus Edward iii put on archery. Is the answer that a high percentage of the enemy force would have been poorly armored? That arrows would kill horses? Or cause armoured knights to panic?

Thanks for the reply! Another thought, could 2 or 3 archers team up on selected targets; one to create an opening one to hit it. Time would be short (30-40 sec) but with the practice I bet they’d be accurate. You could train for it. Just a pondering.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

The bowmen worked in companies and did work closely together. I'm not aware of that kind tactic, but the realms of possibility might not be far off.

Hmm, how much would the knight feel the hits? I can imagine being hit by several arrows would not feel good, even if they didn't penetrate. What's the force of impact?

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Nick, this video will help explain exactly the force of the impact kzread.info/dash/bejne/qWeKsLlsd7ucYaQ.html Thanks for watching.👍🏻

@ehisey

2 жыл бұрын

Depending on range and weight of the bow you can get knock outs through the armour.

@skyttyl

2 жыл бұрын

I'd imagine it'd be like someone pushing on your plate Mail, and for the scratching; with adrenaline running like crazy, I doubt anyone felt it at all till they saw their own blood soaked gambisons, etc.

@kurtnulf3362

Жыл бұрын

Back then a war bow was between 120 to 140 pounds at close range it would be like being hit by a baseball bat it might not penetrate the armor but you are going to feel it in the morning

@NickDanger0001

Жыл бұрын

@@kurtnulf3362 I kinda figured that.

For my tuppence, I am solidly in agreement with you on the arrow -vs - plate issue. Modestly, you put yourself in the company of “other bowmen”. I’ve seen you shoot. Also the clip of you some time ago at Warwick Castle. You are not a bowman, you are an archer! My hat’s off to you. For those who don’t know the difference, a bowman (general term for male or female) is one who has been trained to use a bow, even if self trained. An archer is one who has an affinity with a bow, arguably from birth. This innate ability shows in accuracy, and other usages. It is like the bow and arrow is in their blood. So, Kevin, stand tall. You are an archer.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Oh my goodness, I'm honoured, thank you Allen 👍

I did some rough calculations regarding Agincourt. The french knights were in effect forced through a choke point no wider than 50 meters (it may have been half that), and even that was ground too soft to take at a gallop (3 days torrential rain). The longbowmen possibly fired 6 Arrows per minute for 1 minute to conserve arrows as they were most likely carrying about 20. The total number of longbowmen was possibly 5000 according to some sources, and 500 from just one area of Wales would seem to back this up. That's 500 arrows per second or 10 arrows per second on the front line of knights. Yes the breastplates would have been more or less impervious. However the arrow splinters went every which way and some could have got up under the helmet. There is also the possibility of arrows hitting the vision slits. I bet a bodkin would go through those. You would only need 0.1% of arrows to do that sort of damage for a knight to be injured or killed every 2 seconds. 30 knights and horses down and your choke point is virtually impassible. So even though some areas of the plate armour would have been pretty much impossible to penetrate, some arrows would get through the weak spots through sheer weight of numbers.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hi Gordon thanks for watching and your comments . You might just want to adjust your math up a little to allow for the bowmen carrying 2 sheaves of 24 arrows each, plus then the additional supplies from the baggage train. I love that this has fired your imagination to do these calculations. 👍🏻. Great stuff.

Todd's workshop had experimented extensively with longbows and crossbows on this subject and appears to have come to the same conclusions.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

He has indeed, a good channel for sure 👍🏻

Kevin, if I might ask a question: I recall your speculating about the origin of the "thumbs up" hand gesture indicating that a soldier is "ready" or "good to go". You related that the "thumbs up" hand position was used by professional bowmen as a way of measuring the correct distance of the taut bow-string from the grip of the bow. If I recall correctly, you described it as a "fist-mell" or "fist-maul". Could you clarify that for me? It is a fascinating bit of history.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, that was in the video ‘how to shoot the longbow’. It was a measurement, called the fist-mell and it’s believed it could be the origin of the thumbs up in the saying ‘it’s all jacked up’ 👍

Hi Kevin. I’m always wondering this. Like you said it’s the week spots in armour and areas where joints are that could be penetrated. It’s the mass of the arrows that caused chaos especially with the horses. I certainly would fancy heading towards a volley of arrows. Hope you are keeping well

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Hi there & thanks for your comment. Have we met?

We tend to forget our ancestors weren't stupid. They might not know all the stuff we know today but they knew what they needed to know to survive, in depth. If plate armour didn't work they would never have gone to the expense alone, let alone the weight etc. They were practical, pragmatic, smart and compassionate and more like us than not.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Absolutely, love your comment - thanks Perry 👍🏻

lovely stories and commentary thanks! What do you think about crossbows? Could they penetrate armour more effectively?

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

They're slower but can certainly do a lot more damage and they scare the hell out of me, but the longbow is quicker in open battle. I've done 2 vids on crossbows if you'd like to check them out 👍🏻

So that's why you ahev practice shooting gaps only, it makes sense. I always wondered about this thanks kevin!

@KoishiVibin

5 ай бұрын

Shooting those are impossible at decent range, and while you do that the man with a halberd is coming for you. Just run or put it towards the pelvis.

I believe the scariest thing for a knight would be the spiked iron ball & chain on the end of a mace. That could bash your helmet pretty good.

I appreciated this a lot, it’s a rather simple answer. If the armor didn’t work why did they wear it until gunpowder was widely adopted. Open and shut.

@KoishiVibin

5 ай бұрын

Even then! Plate and gunpowder overlapped a lot!

Exactly the point all that matters is that part of that Arrow of a significant size Finds Its Target the job in war is never to kill the enemy but to keep him from fighting.

great shows kevin. a cold chisel has a tip like the bodkin. a cold chisel makes a tiny tick on steel even with a hammer blow. spaces like joints seems the logical weak spot. the cold chisel is designed to dent or split the plate a bit. but it takes many hits in the same spot to do it. i'd like never to be pierced by a bodkin plated, padded, or bare. god save the king. thank yew kevin.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Cheers Gary. 👍🏻 Me neither.

Really cool video. What do you think about the battle of Agincourt? Tod at Tod's Workshop has a fascination with it, especially as so many knights apparently were killed by arrows and they were wearing armour. What are your thoughts?

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

I love that battle! Here's a video I made on it, and I'll be covering it again as part of my Hundred Years War series kzread.info/dash/bejne/gaObj5iRhsu_ZLA.html

As always Sir, very interesting and strengthens the outcome of the tests that Tod from Tod's Workshop and his fellows made some time ago. They will not penetrate usually, but they might hit gaps, and shards of broken arrows may have been a pest for the knights 😁.

@sirwi11iam

2 жыл бұрын

Tod's tests are great.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Well said!

@eirikronaldfossheim

2 жыл бұрын

The arrows would have penetrated most of the armour they had at Agincourt.

@stuartburns8657

2 жыл бұрын

@@eirikronaldfossheim That's a contentious opinion

@eirikronaldfossheim

2 жыл бұрын

@@stuartburns8657 ... supported by evidence.

I heard the story about William the Marshall too!

The thing that always crosses my mind is, what was it like to be inside a suit of plate being hit by multiple arrows, from a sound point of view? I can only imagine that it must've been deafening, and quite disorienting!

@sirmalus5153

2 жыл бұрын

At an archery club about 10 years ago, I dressed in my full crusader chain maille, with full bucket helmet and shield, with the proper thick padding underneath and let some kids shoot rubber tipped arrows at me, like they use in re-enactment battles. The kids had loads of fun with their weak bows, none of which was over about 10LB draw weight. I also wore modern safety glasses as a precaution, even though the arrows couldn't get through my vision slits, the rubber heads being much too thick to do so. Now the effect was interesting, as not only did I NOT know just when I would be hit, but the shock of it was off putting to say the least. Especially having my large bucket helmet (made from thick 14 gauge metal) struck. I didn't get injured by the blows to the maille of course, but my helmet was given quite the ring occasionally. So being struck by very heavy arrows, with sharp tips, from very powerful bows, all aimed to do the maximum damage, I should think would be terrifying and probably loud inside plate armour.

@DoomNedwob

2 жыл бұрын

@@sirmalus5153 Wow! Thanks Sir Malus. Well done for putting yourself through that. We never got to do that at archery club! I wonder if the shock and noise from being hit in the helmet from a high powered bow, especially at close range, would be enough to knock someone off balance, leaving them vulnerable on the ground, even more so if several archers, working as a team, were aiming at the he same helmet 🤔

@pagejackson1207

Жыл бұрын

I would believe that a iron tipped arrow fired from a English long bow by an experienced archer would transfer a serious amount of energy into a knight wearing a suit of plate. (Assuming that the arrow hit the plate squarely and shattered.) Just how many foot pounds of energy is way beyond my ability to calculate. But I don't think that we should underestimate the effect of those impacts on a knight's fighting ability if exposed to repeated hits on his arms, legs, torso, or head.

@DoomNedwob

Жыл бұрын

@@pagejackson1207 it can't have been pleasant that's for sure!

A personal anecdote followed by my point. I used to shoot the clout-a number one choice for interdicting mounted troops. I couldn't kill a fully buttoned up armored knight at 100 paces that way, but I sure could irritate hell out of/injure/madden his mount. A knight hanging sideways off his bucking horse, strapped in, unable to dismount or regain his seat, is not so dangerous as he was before.

You were talking about William Marshall and his helm being misshapen around his head, and I realized they paid homage to that in "a knight's tale." All I knew of the film before was it was a loose adaptation of Geoffrey chausser's "Canterbury tales." Nice little Easter egg for an ignorant one like myself. 😆

I agree with your conclusion 100%, I am certain that longbow arrows would not have normally fatally penetrated plate armour. The questions I would ask instead are 1) what did longbow arrows do to the horses, 2) did being hit by a deflected arrow hurt, for example modern body armour can stop a bullet but unlike in cinema films the wearer doesn’t just carry on oblivious, they are incapacitated by the shock and pain of blunt force trauma 3) what was the psychological effect, I would have thought there is a natural aversion (both horse and rider) to ride into a hail of arrows, 4) was it a case that with so many arrows the probability of finding an exposed or weak point was significant

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

Thanks Nigel, I'm just researching a battle at the moment where some of those questions will be covered, so stand by 👍🏻

Since you seem to notice... As I have been informed, here are my understandings: [] Plate armor increasingly shields from arrows as go from breastplate, chainmail, gambeson, helmet to suit of steel. [] Arrow have problem of drag. At 50 meters maybe arrows pass through. At 100+ meter arrows bounce right off or stick shallow into armor. [] Chain, brigandine, armor can provide perfectly good defense. Problem of range, again. [] Shield, according to todd's workshop, not like game or movie where arrow magically disappear by quarter, half inch wood. At closer range, perhaps you want vambrace or boss, eh?

With the jousting incident, reminds me of the the movie a knights tale

Fine analysis. To add, I think that if plate armour had not been effective against arrows, suits of armour would not have gone through such lengths & complexity to cover the joints in it. Obviously, those were the weak spots. Against any other weapon, having those joints covered did not add much protection, mail being quite effective against slashing and most stabbing weapons, and a gambesons against blunt-force weapons.

@thehistorysquad

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching and great comment 👍🏻

One question I have so rarely seen addressed is the kinetic effect of a bodkin arrow fired from a longbow upon a fully armored knight, even if did not penetrate. Arrows fired high in a volley at long range, would still come down with considerable force.. Also, arrows sriking knights directly at much coser range most often did not penetrate unless they hit a weak spot. Yet struck with far greater force. Let us not forget that the longbow fired a very heavy bodkin arrow, from a bow with an average one one hundred -and-sixty pounds of pull weight. An arrow striking a knight directy which did not penetrate, would still deliver considerable shock through plate armor, often causing more than a minor injury Add this to the fact longbowman trained for years, were employed en masse, and fired very rapidly and with great accuracy, and it is easy to see how even if their arrows didn't penetrate, they could stil deliver multiple, serious blows to even a heavily armored knight.

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

A great comment, thanks 👍🏻

Bodkins will penetrate but not far, until you spit on the heads, then if you hit right you can strip the fletchings off as it passes through, but only on about the 1 shot in 15 that hits just right. I used a yew self bow 72lb draw @32" and ash arrows with Hector Coles type 2 bodkins shooting at a breastplate. We did manage to shoot the rivet out the centre and separate the placket. At a helmet we got 1 to go through out of about 80 arrows. Penetration was less than a centimetre.

In your fantastic video on how to shoot a longbow, your old Warwick Castle bow, you said you shot your normal cloth yard arrows not armour piercing bodkins and with your terrific aim, you pierced that helmet a few times including one right in to his cheek bone. That's a newer video, so have changed your mind a bit since this video was released?

@thehistorysquad

Жыл бұрын

I haven't really changed my mind Jason. I was truly surprised at the damage my arrows did to that helmet, but reading the evidence of the day most of the arrow wounds on armoured men were to the face and the voids.

Your topic here put me into deep thinking for days. I was watching something about anti-tank weapons, when the iidea hit me. Could maybe the arrows strike with enough force to loose the rivets or chain mail sending it shooting into the wearer. I also imagine that an arrow hitting an armored knight square on the plated forehead may break his neck. Hit on the rest of the plated body it could dislocate joints at the shoulder, elbow, wrist, knee and ankle as well. A knight weilding a heavy lance, mace or sword, puts lots of weight stress on the arm already. If he were to be pommeled further by arrows, that could be like the human limbs between an anvil and a hammer. I imagine a knight's tendons might snap. Maybe you can do an experiment on this. It may answer the nagging question "why did they still use long bows against armoured knights?" I own one of those Rambo compound bows when I was way younger and did not know what I was doing target parcticing on some derelict G-I sheet nailed to 2 by fours. After being hit a couple of times by the blunt tipped arrows (because I did not want it to penetrate the GI just mark where it hit.) Lo and behold the last of the nails holding it in place went flying off, and the GI sheets fell down.

@KoishiVibin

5 ай бұрын

Problem is that arrow, while heavy, is also contesting against inertia of helmet, head, and fact that arrow is not very aerodynamic like a bullet. Also, rounding means impact force not full shove, rather glancing. Why use bows? Because knights come with infantry levy and infantry levy wears chain coat. So you sap enemy numbers and maybe kill in the long run from infections.