Not monkeys but close. Young boys runned among lines with new quivers and my guess is that they had lots of extra quivers on ground at their feet. Would be extremely stupid to have just 30 arrows per archer if your army relies on them.
1 Like
Well men-at-arms relied on lances and they only carried three with them.
Modern day soldiers only carry 210 rounds while they can shoot 700 a minute.
You got to make decisions on whether to bring something along or not as itâs gonna weigh you down⊠Letâs take 85 grams per arrow as average weight. If each archer carried 30 arrow during travel then 120 had to be carted along. Those ten minutes of sustained fire would thus require each archer to carry a quiver and 51.000 kgs of arrows to be carted. If weâre optimistic a single horse drawn cart can carry 500 kgs, this would mean 102 horse drawn carts filled with arrows were required just to keep up that fire rate for ten minutes.
Could you imagine how many carts filled with arrows would have to be brought along if you didnât go to France to fight a single battle? Itâs probably not worth the effort. Those 15 arrows a minute are either a theoretical limit of their rate of fire which they rarely reached or the archers only shot arrows for 3-6 minutes each battle. You decide what is more likely.
I did not mean actually they would shoot all the time with that ammount but im quite sure they still had more than 30 cause that basically is what goes in few short volleys and you have to be apple to fight whole day also then there was those armor piercing arrows and those wasnât wasted on volleys.
btw if command is expecting heavy fighting modern day soldiers are ordered to take double ammo.
Now, thatâs interesting. I participated in a yearly event for 4 years, where around 1800 to 2200 archers shot together in volleys and in a rotating columns-method too. Looked roughly like this:
Naturally, I am not comparing our âperformanceâ to an english longbowman - we are civilians (actually, some of us might practice and compete just as much), use totally different bows and we shot - for safety reasons - not as fast as we could, but at a sign. ButâŠ
Keeping a fire rate of one arrow per 4 seconds per archer for 10 minutes straight is downright impossible for a whole army. (I am also unsure about what the french gentlemen did in the line of fire for 10 minutes straight. Under 10 minutes, using some out-of-my-*ss mathematic (5 km/h for a walking speed), a man can travel at least 800 meters. Probably more, when you are - although armored - under heavy fire.) Not really the 4 seconds (it is also pretty harsh), but the 150 arrows.
Juhnimus, you say that âit would be stupidâ to carry only 30 arrows. Alright, but in my experience, irregardless of keeping the extra arrows at yourself or having brought to you while in battle, it would highly effectively disturb the loading process, because not every next arrow to load is at the same position. Carrying and distributing arrows to the archers also takes time and causes disruption in the process.
The âarmour piercingâ arrows (bodkin arrows?) are also problematic, because in fact, only the first, maybe second row actually have a somewhat clear shot at point-blank range. Itâs just a thought, but I also do not really think that when you shoot an arrow at every 4 seconds, you have time to differentiate between arrows. Piercing armor in my opinion is also a little bit exaggerated. I canât come up with our (as you can see, statistically basically acceptable) tests, because - as I stated - we use totally different bows. I am still yet to see convincing tests about the issue, since the arrow speed is not linearly proportional to draw weight, most of the shots had a reasonable distance to travel, and if the warbow was such an - let me use gaming terms - âoverpoweredâ weapon, then one wonders, why wasnât it used exclusively and why didnât it always win. Also, why did the opponent wear armor in the first place, if it had no effects on the arrows and only slowed the guy down. 
I remember a âtestâ about bronze age equipment. John Coles tested a 0,3mm copper plate as a âbronze shieldâ, and came to conclusion that it was worthless. That was in the 1960âs, and from that point on, most historians accepted that every bronze equipment was useless in combat. Iâm not saying this out loud, but I feel a bit of a similarity here. We grow out of the phase âswords were heavy objects slashing through plate armorâ, looks like we have yet to grow out of âbows mowed down everything armoredâ. Naturally, I am not saying that the english warbow isnât capable of penetrating armor, or that it wasnât an effective weapon; but in my experience it isnât worth simplifying the issue that far. We are talking about insanely complex problems.
Iâll try to search through my old folders on my computer for further photos, because it is also worth seeing just how dense is 6000 arrows in a relatively small area in three volleys. Surprisingly, itâs not that devastating as one could imagine.
For the sake of fun and joy (this is NOT a scientific test, just a penis rubbing), I got out of my chair (yaayâŠ) and did a little test. Again, a ballpark math: I am capable to shoot a ~32 grams heavy arrow with a forged warhead to letâs say, 150 meters. Let us suppose that I have an amazing distance perceiving capability (only when the target is a really attractive female), and start to shoot at exactly the 150 meters mark at an unarmed, unarmoured, innocent target casually walking towards me at a pace of 5 km/h. This gives me roughly 110 seconds to mercilessly murder him/her - with the bow, at least. So, I picked up a stopwatch and my quiver, put them into an ideal position, strung up one of my bows and started to load and pull like an animal. I was loading out of a quiver standing on the ground, not out of my hand. First arrow was nocked already, but i was at resting position.
All in all, I âshotâ 17 arrows (6,5 sec per arrow), I used a light bow, my quiver was at an ideal position, there were no distractions, I wasnât under missile fire, I wasnât afraid to death and noone was standing by, behind or before me, and I wasnât differentiate between my arrows. Because noone was before me, I could also shoot until the last seconds. If it wasnât the case, arching too high up is not an option.
All in all, in my (again: subjective) opinion, a quiver of ~25-30 arrows should absolutely do the trick, and if you do not have time to reload your quiver at that point, then you wonât be using your bow anyways, because the enemy is all over you already. 
1 Like
i donât see any trouble about loading process with different arrows, for example having on those 30 on your belt and rest stuck on ground like bodgins on right and normal arrows on left. As i said battles back then could last few hours or entire day and if its day long battle those 30 arrows are gone in first few hours and then you have lots of archers with axe and almost no armor at all, and yes before anybody says in Agincourt that was their favor but any other terrain no.
about those armor piercing arrows its same as today with bullets and bulletproof vests. Even if it does not penetrate it has enough force to have good chance to broke ribs and cause internal bleeding or if hit to helmet to knock knight out.
This video gives idea what i mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs
1 Like
I am pretty sure none of those arrows would have killed the wearer.
If a battle did take multiple hours then you could get someone to fetch more from the baggage train. But I highly doubt the total number of arrows per person exceeded 60 maybe a total of 60-70 per person per campaign.
Yes those shot would not have killed wearer but even they managed to break armor, place their spot to ten year trained man and maybe litlebit stronger bow, then those arrows would have sunken deeper.
Well if those 140 lbs bows in the first video couldnât get through a gambeson than I doubt arrows fired from such a bow would penetrate the metal and then go through the padding underneath with a blunted tip.
In some sense, you are right, when you state:
âthose armor piercing arrows its same as today with bullets and bulletproof vests.â
The job of the armor is to keep you alive and protect from danger up to a rational extent. It is not necessarily the armorâs job to keep itself-, or even - some cases - you unharmed! On the video, we do not know the shooting distance, but we do know that the high-carbon steel plate is 1,5mm thick (higher values were common in well protected areas according to a fast google search, but letâs pretend I did not wrote that here), the shape is basic, the crafting process and material not authentic, there was no padding and yet most of the shots did not get through at all, even though it was shot far more times than it is fair to suppose in a battle.
I am also pretty sure that there is not a âgood chance to break ribsâ.
A ~7,5g 9x19mm FMJ Para has a muzzle energy of ~570 Joules (and - to compare - a muzzle velocity of 1300 fps) [source], the AKâs 7,62x39mm 57-N-231 has a muzzle energy of 2,036 Joules [Wiki], whereas a longbow shooting a 60g heavy arrow with ~200 fps (61 m/s) [also source] gives us 112 joules, if my math is correct. Please note that in the video the hit angles were also near perfect - and again: paddingâŠ
If you are on a horse, letâs say that the coming arrow has a plus ~50 fps advantage (technically less, because it possibly doesnât arrive at a right angle), but also the archer has less time to achieve something.
So standing in front of a pack of english longbows - or any bows - is by no means a nice and calming experience, but by having a fine set of armor and - God forbid - a shield, you are not automatically a dead man.
While weâre on the topic; here is another amazing piece of armor.
Itâs 6 mm thick at the front of the visor. Pretty sure it will stop a 9mm
2 Likes
Hi!
I actually own an Armet, they are amazing, they were the highest tech helmet out there of the time. You have a beak which deflects the blows away from your centre line, (Arrows wonât connect, but will bounce off), and at the front you have around two layers of plate covering the front, with up to four layers of plate covering your neck! You can easily break down the construction of an armet, you have a basic Bascinet, with two front plates added, which cover your neck and open up to fit in a head, then a beaked visor on top. And optional for better protection a Bevor too, so you have maximum protection for your entire front, a bevor should match up to the beaks point, or it could be awkward. I bloody love them, best helmet ever in my opinion.
Regards,
Warrior Rose.
1 Like
For fuckâs sake how heavy would an armor wholy made of 6 mm plate be?
9mm may not punch through but I wonder what kind of impact mark it would leave. It may very well shatter the bone under it.
Human body surface in square mm (minus uncovered parts and folds) x 6 x density of the carbon steel it was made of.
But I havenât had anything to do with physics since high school so itâs a bit rusty. The end sum would probably be in the region of 60-80 kgs.
I highly doubt that would stop a 9 mm. It would be like getting hit in the head with a war hammer spike but the bullet would hit waaaay faster. And like @snejdarek even if it didnât go through the helmet would be pretty much fucked beyond use and the force would must likely kill you.
Arrows were piercing French knights helmets ant Agincourt in some cases so im almost certain that would do nothing against a 9mm.
1 Like
Agincourt was a century before that helm was made.
Anyways itâs your word against that of dr. Tobias Capwell so I think Iâll just take his word.
He shot this helmet with a 9 mm? If muskets were a threat to plate armor i highly doubt a modern fire arm wouldnât be able to penetrate this helmet. But if this dr. Tobias did conduct a test then i apologize.
As far as I am aware heâs not shooting at museum pieces with a 9mm.
But he did show the helmet I showed in a lecture recently, I believe itâs on youtube.
Well then i guess weâll never know but im very skeptical that it would stop a 9 mm. A round musket ball went through plate correct me if im wrong. The 9 mm would be a different story. Its shot much faster it is better for penetration because modern bullets tend to be pointy.
Musket balls did not go through plate armor, Finland, Turku city where i live is buried former leader of Hakkapeliita cavalry and his armor that is in museum has several ball sized dents. But they could knock you off your horse or even broke some bones depending where they hit.
In the 17th century you still had helmets and breastplates that could stop a pointblank range shot from a cavalry carbine. However before industrial processes of making steel and gunpowder quality of steel and the velocity of shots could vary.
Then there was armor usage during WWI and WWII
