Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[AgentPaper]

But they can probably carry a shield. Even if the arrows should prove fatal eventually, it's small comfort to the archer if that occurs any time after they get their head split open. I suspect in the realm of discomforting the foe, you're going to need a reasonably powerful bow to do much good. Maybe not a 150lbs monster, but something relatively lethal.

I never said anything about shooting at someone who's charging at you. This is army tactics I'm talking about, so at the very least you've got some other people with their own swords and shields to stand in front of you if the people you're shooting at decide to come at you.

At any rate, I'm not saying it would be a good replacement for normal archery, just that it could be quite useful in certain situations. Even if you never actually fire off three arrows in one and a half seconds in real combat, learning how to do so would probably help you a lot on firing your normal shots faster.

Just like spending a long time lining up your shot, checking the wind, and so on to make the absolute perfect shot probably isn't very useful in direct combat most of the time, but learning how to make such a precise shot is how you learn to make your normal shots more precise.


Also, I'd point out that the main speed-up technique used seems to come from holding the arrows in your hand as you fire, so you don't have to pull them out and load them. This would continue to work to make for much faster, if not quite as blindingly fast, shots even if you pulled all the way back rather than just partway. I'd expect it'd be pretty tiring as well, but it's OK to be tired if you just shot 10 arrows in as many seconds and killed the five guys charging at you with axes.

[Brother Oni]

I'm pretty sure there was absolutely nothing about short drawing, holding arrows in hands or 'such archery' in this Crusade account though.

You're right, I think I got confused with something else.

The video lists a book, "Arab Archery
An Arabic manuscript of about A.D. 1500 “Book on the Excellence of the Bow and Arrow” and the Description thereof." as a source of inspiration and which apparently is now public domain: link.

The part on drawing (Chapter XVIII) says the arrowhead should reach the tip of the thumbnail (for war) and the draw should be somewhere in the region of past the jawbone; to the lobe of the ear; or the tragus (I think - the translation says 'the white spot between the lobe of the ear and the side of the beard').

That's pretty much a full draw, any way you shape it.

[Spiryt]

Also, I'd point out that the main speed-up technique used seems to come from holding the arrows in your hand as you fire, so you don't have to pull them out and load them. This would continue to work to make for much faster, if not quite as blindingly fast, shots even if you pulled all the way back rather than just partway. I'd expect it'd be pretty tiring as well, but it's OK to be tired if you just shot 10 arrows in as many seconds and killed the five guys charging at you with axes.

I don't think it would be faster, actually propably slower, than good old arrow stuck to the ground before you, though.

Things like arrows in hand would probably be more useful too mounted archers, who obviously don't really have simpler methods available.

Killing 5 guys charging at you with 10 arrows is obviously better left to Legolas, such kind efficiency of fire is pretty much uknown in sources before moderm SMG.

That's pretty much a full draw, any way you shape it

The very popularity of all kinds of thumb rings clearly suggest that most 'Eastern' archers in general were seriously hell bent on having as long draw as possible.

[Rhynn]

I'm pretty sure there was absolutely nothing about short drawing, holding arrows in hands or 'such archery' in this Crusade account though.

Yeah, my impression was that it was just a testimony to the effectiveness of mail + quilt at stopping arrows.

[Mike_G]

It's trick shooting. It looks cool, but trick shooting doesn't have much to do with combat shooting.

Better to shoot one guy dead than annoy a dozen guys. Maybe you could disperse crowds of angry citizens, like a medieval rubber bullet, but I can't see how short range, low lethality arrows would impress most soldiers.

[warty goblin]

It's also worth noting that arrows aren't cheap or light. It's not like you can haul a few hundred of them into battle with you, so it's probably worthwhile to make the ones you've got count.

[fusilier]

In a non-military situation, if you find yourself outnumbered and cornered, then maybe some rapid trick shooting might allow you to escape.

In military combat volume of projectiles is useful as there's a chance that even a weak projectile will land a lucky shot. However, that was typically accomplished by massing archers. Also, you can, to a certain extent, trade effective range for penetration (i.e. an arrow that won't penetrate armor at 100 yards, might do it at 15 yards) -- although I think the aerodynamics of arrows used with bows are pretty good(?), certainly when compared to a military crossbow bolt(?).

[Brother Oni]

In a non-military situation, if you find yourself outnumbered and cornered, then maybe some rapid trick shooting might allow you to escape.

From accounts, I believe this form of trick shooting was performed by Mongol horse archers when luring the enemy into ambushes. Fast enough to annoy and distract them, not damaging enough to make them think twice about pursuing.

Once the enemy were lured out of position, they reverted back to their full draws, which were far more lethal, just before the Mongol heavy cavalry and infantry trapped and crushed the lured enemy.

Also, you can, to a certain extent, trade effective range for penetration (i.e. an arrow that won't penetrate armor at 100 yards, might do it at 15 yards) -- although I think the aerodynamics of arrows used with bows are pretty good(?), certainly when compared to a military crossbow bolt(?).

A bow is definitely more efficient (you need something like a 200+lb crossbow to match the range of a 90lb self bow) and at ranges over 100', an arrow still retained better killing power than a bolt.
Anything less than 100', a powerful crossbow penetrated armour better.

Edit: Just noticed something amusing - in the video linked earlier, they had a clip from Avatar with one of those blue guys (Na'vi?) drawing the bow in the way that a modern compound archer with a release aid would, which is completely different to any known technique - even Ishi, a completely isolated Native American archer, used a variant of the thumb draw.

[GnomeFighter]

Edit: Just noticed something amusing - in the video linked earlier, they had a clip from Avatar with one of those blue guys (Na'vi?) drawing the bow in the way that a modern compound archer with a release aid would, which is completely different to any known technique - even Ishi, a completely isolated Native American archer, used a variant of the thumb draw.

Thats going to annoy me now. Doing that you will end up hitting the back of your head or taking your ear off. You could argue they hand being the wrong way is a function of some alien anatomy, but drawing that far back... Your going to have a nasty accident, and going to have allot of problems aiming.

In a non-military situation, if you find yourself outnumbered and cornered, then maybe some rapid trick shooting might allow you to escape.

You don't want to find yourself in that possision. For a start why would you spend time stringing your bow rather than running away?

In military combat volume of projectiles is useful as there's a chance that even a weak projectile will land a lucky shot. However, that was typically accomplished by massing archers. Also, you can, to a certain extent, trade effective range for penetration (i.e. an arrow that won't penetrate armor at 100 yards, might do it at 15 yards) -- although I think the aerodynamics of arrows used with bows are pretty good(?), certainly when compared to a military crossbow bolt(?).

The power of the bow is in its range. With the exception of horse archers (who do not rely on volume) you want your enemy as far away as possible. Once the enemy get close enough you drop your bow and pick up something else. The European archers (both cross and long bow) would have pikes and swords for when the enemy got close enough. You would not see the kind of combat you see in films or D&D with archers shooting that close. Apart from anything else a bow is unwieldy and takes time to fire.

[Spiryt]

although I think the aerodynamics of arrows used with bows are pretty good(?), certainly when compared to a military crossbow bolt(?).

Well, as far as I heard, all other being equal, shorter arrow will fly better.

Although very heavy bolts could probably indeed face problem with aerodynamics, due to being very thick for their lenght.

Being stiff was definitely big plus, arrows can waste huge amount of their energy by bending around, especially while leaving the bow and archer paradoxing.

[Mr. Mask]

Another archery related question, if I may: Would archers during wars swap the kind of arrow they were using, for another? Such as, swapping between broad-heads and anti-armour headed arrows?

[Galloglaich]

Without a doubt. There were many types of arrows that we see in archeological contexts (as arrowheads) and in surviving antiques. Used for many purposes, military as well as hunting and so on.

I think the trick shooting thing bears looking into a bit, not 100% convinced of it's military value but I can think of some circumstances where it would be useful. I'd like to see the manual that guy was working from.

G

[Brother Oni]

Another archery related question, if I may: Would archers during wars swap the kind of arrow they were using, for another? Such as, swapping between broad-heads and anti-armour headed arrows?

Generally, yes if they had the arrows in supply.

Obviously they wouldn't switch arrows unnecessarily (eg someone bearing down on them, loose the arrow they had then grab the appropriate one), but if they saw an opportunity, then they would.

[warty goblin]

It's also worth noting that a broadhead is going to cost more than a bodkin point, since it's got a much more complex shape. Therefore it is more difficult and time consuming to forge than the basic square or triangular spike of a bodkin.

[Martin Greywolf]

A few notes on arrow and bolt aerodynamics and mechanics.

First, two videos of crossbow (unfortunately modern pistol type) and a bow (also modern, notice how arrow has shorter paradoxing time) in action:
Crossbow
Bow

1) Crossbows are better at release, simply because of lack of archer paradox, all energy goes straight ahead, instead of being spent on bending. Since bolts are thicker, higher draw weights are possible. I suspect that bolts for 6000lbs cranequins had to be metal, but that´s just a speculation on my part.

2) Arrows have better aerodynamics thanks to their shape. They are longer, so they can be fired in an arc effectively and they don´t tumble at the end of their trajectory as bolts tend to do (notice how bolt goes almost sideways a few times, normal crossbow does it later, since it´s longer).

3) Arrows are lighter, especially when we compare most powerful bow to the most powerful crossbow. This has a rather complex effect on penetrating power (you need a few equations to figure out which one is on top where), but allows arrows to fly farther (record with a composite bow is something around 800 meters, far beyond effective range).

4) Bolts have better penetrating power when they hit a target with the same momentum. Remember how arrow bends when you shoot it? Yeah, it does it when it hits something, too. This is irrelevant when firing at unarmored target, but a simple gambeson can make it important (at longish ranges, think 100 meters and more), not to mention mail or plate. Arrow simply spends a great deal of it´s energy bending.

5) Lighter, longer projectiles are easier to deflect to the side. You rarely get a frontal hit at someone in a battle situation.

[Spiryt]

.
but allows arrows to fly farther (record with a composite bow is something around 800 meters, far beyond effective range).

Those records are quite literally records though, and they were specifically attained as a sport performances - bows and arrows optimized to fly as far as only possible.

Probably no one was doing it with crossbows on any larger scale.

And generally, arrows and bolt weight actually tended to be similar - for similar energy, similar projectile weight was used.

[Avilan the Grey]

It's also worth noting that arrows aren't cheap or light. It's not like you can haul a few hundred of them into battle with you, so it's probably worthwhile to make the ones you've got count.

Very very rarely did European archery in wartime boil down to hitting individual targets.
A well trained Longbowman can during volley-firing fire more than 20 arrows a minute. At Agincourt the English archers fired 15 000 arrows a minute on the advancing Frenchmen. And that is a very conservative estimate.

[Mr. Mask]

Forgive me for asking so many questions closely together (and thank you for doing such a fine job with my other curiosities). But does anyone know much about what medieval training camps would be like, compared to today's military?

More specifically, I was wondering what the boot camp of a very professional military of around the 1,200s of Europe would be like. Would drill instructors spout profanity at recruits, much as with the Marines?

[Rhynn]

More specifically, I was wondering what the boot camp of a very professional military of around the 1,200s of Europe would be like. Would drill instructors spout profanity at recruits, much as with the Marines?

There was no such thing.

Common soldiers - militia - were trained locally, at the village, maybe at the market town. The knight who held the manor was responsible for bringing along a set number of men to a muster, usually just a couple (cf. Lances fournies). Usually there were specific traditions or ordnances about training so many times a year at these times.

Free cities did the same, generally. Burghers were obliged to own arms and armor (and often owned impressive amounts of them, at least collectively).

Professional warriors - knights and rare full-time men-at-arms - probably received fairly informal personal instruction, and a lot of it.

Mercenaries would probably mostly be drawn from people with experience, or trained informally.

Professional, centrally trained militaries came much later, after the Renaissance. More 17th century than 13th.

[Mr. Mask]

Is much known about the training the militia would go through?

[Spiryt]

Knights and members of their retinues could be quite often 'professional' so pretty much living from war, defending territories and raiding other territories, not to mention Crusades...

Peasants would often be required to guard the ramparts or some other border fortifications, keeps, villages, etc.

All kinds of people who were required to fight due to their lands/privileges would rally to arms on different terms, depending on local law.

All kinds of people could be expected to get 'recruited' into those structures, particularly richers knights retiunes, as guards, shooters, brigands in general. People from all kinds of 'society margins' would be often welcome.
And profanities would certainly be widely utilized.

but yeah, nothing similar to modern boot camps.

[Mr. Mask]

To paraphrase that: Less attempts to break the spirit of recruits by shouting at them, and instead, "Here's what you do, now you try it"?

[Rhynn]

To paraphrase that: Less attempts to break the spirit of recruits by shouting at them, and instead, "Here's what you do, now you try it"?

I've never heard of any historical documents describing how anyone was trained for war in the Middle Ages. There are some detailed records of how Roman legionnaires were trained, but that's not got anything to do with the Middle Ages, really.

It's just impossible to say, really. A lot of things were never written down. Moreover, even if you found a description of one instance, it's not going to apply anywhere else. There was no "military" like we think of it now, there was no centralization, no rules and probably no instructions on how to train militia. Presumably, everyone tried to teach people the best they could to survive and be useful.

Given that teaching anything often involves a fair bit of cursing and screaming at your students, and that this was about teaching people crucial skills to save their lives and the lives of other, I don't doubt cursing and screaming was involved, but I really suspect it wasn't at all the carefully-crafted psychological deconstruction that modern armies (used to) apply. (They've sort of pulled back from it in the last few decades in much of the Western world.)

Semi-relatedly, the mercenary boot camp in the first book of The Deed of Paksenarrion comes across as pretty anachronistic (even if otherwise fairly accurate - no surprise since the author, Elizabeth Moon, served in the USMC). Granted, it is a set-up with probably more in common with the Roman legions than Medieval musters.

[Chromascope3D]

Another archery related question, if I may: Would archers during wars swap the kind of arrow they were using, for another? Such as, swapping between broad-heads and anti-armour headed arrows?

This guy has a pretty good series explaining (well, ranting about) medieval weaponry, and he answered this fairly recently.
The rant about arrows.
He's also done a few about bows in general, the most recent being about longbows specifically, and two more considerably older ones.

Sorry if I'm too late to the discussion.

[Galloglaich]

Is much known about the training the militia would go through?

Yes though it's not very accessible to the non academic layman.

In summary, there are two types of training, skill training, which seems to have been organized principally in the form of competitions and is pretty well documented, and actual drill which usually happened in militias, professional armies and mercenary companies.

For commoners, marksmanship contests, of the type you see in various Robin Hood films, William Tell stories and so on, were probably the single most important type of skill test, and hugely popular. Towns put out immense amounts of money to sponsor marksmanship contests with crossbows (and later guns), the English King did so with longbows - hosting mandatory training events and awarding prizes.

The second most important was something called 'fechtschules', a combination instructional event and tournament for fencing with swords, sabers, staffs, and later also rapiers and other weapons. We have a great deal of documentation about these, as well as some period artwork. Alongside this kind of tournament we see practice lifting weights, grappling or wrestling, sparring with special blunt swords, and gymnastics.

For knights, and the merchant elite of the towns, the tournament, joust, fight at the barriers and so on, was key.

Boucicaut described a series of 'feats' that knights should train to become practice expert at, (from my friend Richard Marsden via a 19th Century book:)

1 - While fully armored he leaped on and off his horse without assistance.
2 - He ran great distances in armor to build up his endurance.
3 - With an axe or mace he delivered strikes to a thick logs or a block of stone.
4- He did many leaps while in armor.
5 - He leaped upon his horse in armor while the horse had no stirrups.
6- He danced in his hauberk. (No explanation is given)
7 - He would vault onto the shoulders (unarmored it appears) of a tall man on a horse with no help except grabbing the man by his sleeves. (?)
8 - With one hand on the pommel of the saddle and one hand on the ears of a charger, he'd leap over it.
9 - He'd, unarmored, find two narrow walls and scale up them using his legs and arms.
10 - He'd climb a ladder upside-down. Unarmored he did this one handed.
11 - He and his squires practiced the art of 'darting the lance' (no explanation given).

In some respects this is kind of like the armored, cavalry version of the famous feats of the Fianna.

On the formal group-trianing, we have accounts of this pretty early among the Swiss, in places like the Dithmarschen, in Flanders, and among a lot of the towns. Also certain royal armies and mercenary groups (like the Landsknechts) would do formal drill training, both for cavalry and infantry. Jan Ziska formally trained the Czechs before and during the Hussite wars, including training scouts; Piotr Dunnin started doing this with the Polish Cavalry during the 13 Years War, creating the basis for what would later become the Polish Hussars. I believe the French Royal armies were doing formal cavalry training by the 16th Century.

G

[Galloglaich]

The top of this image for 'Sol' (the Astrological symbol of the Sun) shows a typical traning scene associated with fencers. You can see them lifting rocks, grappling, sparring with staves, on the ground you see the special type of characteristic sparring swords we now called 'feders' or 'federschwert'



G

[Galloglaich]

A 'fechtschule' from 1585



G

[Brother Oni]

A 'fechtschule' from 1585

Spoiler

Show

Would this imply that the 'training ground' locations and the regular tournaments to build up skill (not to mention the chance for fame and riches) in games such as Mount and Blade, are not too far away from the truth?

[Mike_G]

It also depends on the type of troops.

Pikemen would need to be very good at drill, if you wanted them to actually move in formation. That takes a lot of work to do without entangling a bunch of pikes and turning into a mob. I can imagine Swiss instructors bellowing at their new trainees the medieval equivalent of "My grandmother could do that faster and she's dead!" "Didn't your family have any sons to send me?" and that kind of thing.

Boot camp stress is designed to get the recruit used to performing in a loud, stress filled environment. Since combat can be, y'know, loud and stressful. Which is why the cliche of the Drill Instructor bellowing abuse at the recruit from a distance of inches is a good picture of the first few weeks of Marine boot camp. If you can't handle being yelled at, you probably won't do all that well being shot at, and it's best we weed you out in Week 1.

The "break your spirit" thing is exaggerated. Modern Americans are very much individuals, and we have been used to worrying about ourselves first and everyone else later. That isn't good for a military uint, so the idea iis to play down your individual identity (everyone has the same haircut, dresses the same, uses rank and title rather than name) to reinforce the group identity.

Ooh Rah.

Broken spirits don't make good soldiers. People who have been tempered by stress, and put the group before themselves do.

[Galloglaich]

Would this imply that the 'training ground' locations and the regular tournaments to build up skill (not to mention the chance for fame and riches) in games such as Mount and Blade, are not too far away from the truth?

Yes, though the training grounds seemed to be kind of transitory, events more than institutions. However pretty common events, I think there were about 30 or 40 fechtschules in Strasbourg every year in the early 16th Century for example.

The most important thing were the knightly tournaments, which were definitely used like in Mount and Blade (it was almost like a racing circuit or a martial arts circuit, you could become a rock star) and those shooting tournaments for the towns. The prizes were equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars in todays money in some cases.

G