Mixing
Would chainmail stop an arrow from a longbow?
$begingroup$
Restated in more words, would a conscripted pikeman with a decent set of chainmail but no shield have any hope against an arrow from your basic english longbow?
weapons armors arrows
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
$endgroup$
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Restated in more words, would a conscripted pikeman with a decent set of chainmail but no shield have any hope against an arrow from your basic english longbow?
weapons armors arrows
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
1
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
1
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
1
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
1
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Restated in more words, would a conscripted pikeman with a decent set of chainmail but no shield have any hope against an arrow from your basic english longbow?
weapons armors arrows
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
$endgroup$
Restated in more words, would a conscripted pikeman with a decent set of chainmail but no shield have any hope against an arrow from your basic english longbow?
weapons armors arrows
weapons armors arrows
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
edited Jan 6 at 4:35
Cyn
6,12411035
6,12411035
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
asked Jan 5 at 19:19
LoganP98LoganP98
282
282
1
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
1
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
1
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
1
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
1
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03
|
show 5 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
1
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
1
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
1
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
1
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03
1
1
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
1
1
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
1
1
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
1
1
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
1
1
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This depends a lot on the arrow and type of chainmail. the draw of the bow (english longbows do not have a standardized draw) also matters. A broadhead hitting a six ring mail wouldn't yield much more than a scratch, a spike bodkin will go right through 4 ring mail and barely notice the armor.
If the archers know there will be armored targets they will be using bodkins which are very good at penetrating chainmail (and armor in general) of course the downside of these arrowheads is they don't cause all that much bleeding meaning they take time to kill someone most of the time.
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the pikeman was 20 yards farther than the maximum range of the bow he would be safe from that shot since it wouldn't even reach him.
In the US Civil War bullets would slow down as they traveled farther and father and would eventually be what was called "spent rounds" shortly before falling to the ground. Many soldiers survived being hit by spent rounds without serious injury.
If the same thing happened to arrows then there would be distances where arrows from even the strongest bows couldn't reach, closer distances where unarmored men wouldn't be seriously injured by arrows, closer distances where men in mail were safe but unarmored men would be seriously wounded, closer distances where arrows penetrated mail and inflicted serious wounds but couldn't penetrate plate armor, and perhaps closer distances where arrows might penetrate even plate armor.
And perhaps someone who is more of an expert on medieval archery will be able to tell you what those ranges would be.
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135692%2fwould-chainmail-stop-an-arrow-from-a-longbow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This depends a lot on the arrow and type of chainmail. the draw of the bow (english longbows do not have a standardized draw) also matters. A broadhead hitting a six ring mail wouldn't yield much more than a scratch, a spike bodkin will go right through 4 ring mail and barely notice the armor.
If the archers know there will be armored targets they will be using bodkins which are very good at penetrating chainmail (and armor in general) of course the downside of these arrowheads is they don't cause all that much bleeding meaning they take time to kill someone most of the time.
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This depends a lot on the arrow and type of chainmail. the draw of the bow (english longbows do not have a standardized draw) also matters. A broadhead hitting a six ring mail wouldn't yield much more than a scratch, a spike bodkin will go right through 4 ring mail and barely notice the armor.
If the archers know there will be armored targets they will be using bodkins which are very good at penetrating chainmail (and armor in general) of course the downside of these arrowheads is they don't cause all that much bleeding meaning they take time to kill someone most of the time.
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This depends a lot on the arrow and type of chainmail. the draw of the bow (english longbows do not have a standardized draw) also matters. A broadhead hitting a six ring mail wouldn't yield much more than a scratch, a spike bodkin will go right through 4 ring mail and barely notice the armor.
If the archers know there will be armored targets they will be using bodkins which are very good at penetrating chainmail (and armor in general) of course the downside of these arrowheads is they don't cause all that much bleeding meaning they take time to kill someone most of the time.
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
$endgroup$
This depends a lot on the arrow and type of chainmail. the draw of the bow (english longbows do not have a standardized draw) also matters. A broadhead hitting a six ring mail wouldn't yield much more than a scratch, a spike bodkin will go right through 4 ring mail and barely notice the armor.
If the archers know there will be armored targets they will be using bodkins which are very good at penetrating chainmail (and armor in general) of course the downside of these arrowheads is they don't cause all that much bleeding meaning they take time to kill someone most of the time.
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
edited Jan 6 at 2:31
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
answered Jan 5 at 19:42
JohnJohn
31.7k943113
31.7k943113
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
1
1
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
This is the right answer, though I wish for more detail. The quality of the metal (both for the arrow and the armor), the density of the rings (which might be what you're talking about with 4-ring and 6-ring mail). As well the cushioning under the mail, if any (allowing the mail to flex), etc. This answer would be better with a couple more paragraphs.
$endgroup$
– JBH
Jan 5 at 20:02
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
$begingroup$
@John Thanks for your answer. The idea here is that the opposing force is not using bodkins, just standard broadheads. As far as the quality of the metal in the armor, I must confess that I have not reached that point in my research yet, I still need to learn more about different qualities of metal.
$endgroup$
– LoganP98
Jan 7 at 2:41
1
1
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
$begingroup$
Also important is a distinction between butted and riveted chainmail. Butted was more cheap and common, but provided little defense against broadheads and virtually no defense against bodkins. Riveted was more rare, but could be good at stopping all kinds of arrows.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
Jan 7 at 19:00
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the pikeman was 20 yards farther than the maximum range of the bow he would be safe from that shot since it wouldn't even reach him.
In the US Civil War bullets would slow down as they traveled farther and father and would eventually be what was called "spent rounds" shortly before falling to the ground. Many soldiers survived being hit by spent rounds without serious injury.
If the same thing happened to arrows then there would be distances where arrows from even the strongest bows couldn't reach, closer distances where unarmored men wouldn't be seriously injured by arrows, closer distances where men in mail were safe but unarmored men would be seriously wounded, closer distances where arrows penetrated mail and inflicted serious wounds but couldn't penetrate plate armor, and perhaps closer distances where arrows might penetrate even plate armor.
And perhaps someone who is more of an expert on medieval archery will be able to tell you what those ranges would be.
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the pikeman was 20 yards farther than the maximum range of the bow he would be safe from that shot since it wouldn't even reach him.
In the US Civil War bullets would slow down as they traveled farther and father and would eventually be what was called "spent rounds" shortly before falling to the ground. Many soldiers survived being hit by spent rounds without serious injury.
If the same thing happened to arrows then there would be distances where arrows from even the strongest bows couldn't reach, closer distances where unarmored men wouldn't be seriously injured by arrows, closer distances where men in mail were safe but unarmored men would be seriously wounded, closer distances where arrows penetrated mail and inflicted serious wounds but couldn't penetrate plate armor, and perhaps closer distances where arrows might penetrate even plate armor.
And perhaps someone who is more of an expert on medieval archery will be able to tell you what those ranges would be.
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If the pikeman was 20 yards farther than the maximum range of the bow he would be safe from that shot since it wouldn't even reach him.
In the US Civil War bullets would slow down as they traveled farther and father and would eventually be what was called "spent rounds" shortly before falling to the ground. Many soldiers survived being hit by spent rounds without serious injury.
If the same thing happened to arrows then there would be distances where arrows from even the strongest bows couldn't reach, closer distances where unarmored men wouldn't be seriously injured by arrows, closer distances where men in mail were safe but unarmored men would be seriously wounded, closer distances where arrows penetrated mail and inflicted serious wounds but couldn't penetrate plate armor, and perhaps closer distances where arrows might penetrate even plate armor.
And perhaps someone who is more of an expert on medieval archery will be able to tell you what those ranges would be.
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
$endgroup$
If the pikeman was 20 yards farther than the maximum range of the bow he would be safe from that shot since it wouldn't even reach him.
In the US Civil War bullets would slow down as they traveled farther and father and would eventually be what was called "spent rounds" shortly before falling to the ground. Many soldiers survived being hit by spent rounds without serious injury.
If the same thing happened to arrows then there would be distances where arrows from even the strongest bows couldn't reach, closer distances where unarmored men wouldn't be seriously injured by arrows, closer distances where men in mail were safe but unarmored men would be seriously wounded, closer distances where arrows penetrated mail and inflicted serious wounds but couldn't penetrate plate armor, and perhaps closer distances where arrows might penetrate even plate armor.
And perhaps someone who is more of an expert on medieval archery will be able to tell you what those ranges would be.
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
answered Jan 5 at 19:33
M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding
8,149425
8,149425
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135692%2fwould-chainmail-stop-an-arrow-from-a-longbow%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Pikemen and longbow archers seldom met on a field of battle; you may be thinking of spearmen. Pike formations were introduced in the Renaissance, by which time English longbows were already falling out of fashion. One of the few notable battles where pike formations fought against longbow archers was the battle of Flodden in 1513; the (Scottish) pike formations lost against the (English) halberd formations; the English had longbow archers in the field, but contemporary sources say that they did not have much influence on the outcome.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:52
1
$begingroup$
P.S. Pikemen were very well trained professionals. No self-respecting officer would even think of placing a conscript in a pike formation; he would be a danger to himself and to his comrades.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 5 at 19:55
1
$begingroup$
"A king pulls the farmers from the field:" that's not how things went in the Middle Ages, except possibly, occasionally, in eastern Europe. Is the story set in Wallachia? In western Europe, all the king could do is summon his direct vassals, who would summon their vassals and so on down to yeomen. And nowhere, eastern or western Europe, would the king even think of providing equipment. Everybody was required to come with their own equipment. In more civilizied countries, such as England, the law specified what equipment (e.g., "a good bow") each free subject was required to have.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 7 at 6:29
1
$begingroup$
The feudal society was very highly hierarchical, with each person (except the sovereign, whatever their title) having a suzerain, and each person (except those on the lowest rungs) having one or more vassals. (Clerics had their own distinct and parallel hierarchy.) A vassal had to provide consilium et auxilium, advice and support, to their suzerain. A country was not "divided" into provinces, it "consisted" of provinces, which could (and often did) move from the rule of one sovereign to another's. Yes, a medieval army consisted of the assembled forces of the grand vassals of the sovereign.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 16:53
1
$begingroup$
Start with the Wikipedia article on feudalism, which is a good introduction. You may then want to read a detailed description of some military campaign; for example, The History of the Battle of Agincourt by Sir Harris Nicholas, London, 1833, available at Archive.org. It describes the full campaign; how the negotiations broke down, how King Henry V arranged for financing the war, how the army was raised etc. It has both the historian's narrative and excerpts from the primary documents.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
Jan 8 at 17:03