Where do you get the idea that archers were under-armoured?
As far as I’m aware they had the same legal obligations in terms of arms and armour as their peers of equal class. They’re depicted in medieval illustrations as generally wearing about the same amount of armour as other soldiers.
From historical sources maybe? And common sense, archers were pessants and their purpose was not to be in close melee thus they would not need chainmails, sure nobody wasn’t say no if somebody had one but it cost like hell so you would have to buy that on yourself or loot it.
Archers were actually highly paid in England and valued greatly. Archers would have at least worn a Gambeson which would have provided decent protection. Im also pretty sure archers did fight in melee because in places like England they made up a big bulk of the army. Archers were not helpless pussys like movies/shows/games make them out to be. Also in most pictures you see of Archers back then they were wearing helmets and armor.
Yes they were in melee BUT it wasn’t their main job and thus their lords would not buy them same stuff as frontline soldiers. and Gamberon is light armor, its good against cuts and some stabs but that it.
Yes but they could fight in melee. At the battle of Crecy the English army was over half archers and im pretty sure they had to fight in melee. At Agincourt the English archers had to fight hand to hand with the french knights who had full plate armor on. But the knights got suck in the mud and many died by suffocating in their heavy armor or got exhausted and then got stabbed through the visor with a dagger by an English solider.
yes i said that Agincourt thing on my earlier post…
Also most front line troops weren’t nobles who could afford plate armor. Most would have probably just worn a Gambeson.
Lords were responsible to delivers certain ammount of troop and their stuff to the king, my point is been all along that lords would buy stuff that would suit best of troops role in army.
Gambesons weren’t expensive as far as i know and provided good protection. I really dont get what you’re saying at this point. They could probably easily afford to buy armor for their archers.
i don’t know what we even argue cause i did never say that they would not have armor but that they would not be the best armored fighters in melee unlike swordsman with chainmail or knight with plate armor cause it was not their main job to be in melee.
You were saying they were under-armored. A gambeson was probably what most foot soliders had available to them so Archers would have probably been equally armored with most man at arms on the battle field.
I never said they were.
Yeah but 17th century wouldn’t have been bullets it would have been musket balls still. I believe they didn’t really start using rifles until the early-mid 19th century. Modern bullets tend to be kinda pointy and it would cause more force than a war hammer spike going through the helmet. Theres a reason people stopped wearing plate. If they really could stop gun fire that easily i doubt plate would have gone out of style.
But were there accounts of their armor stopping bullets? Because i highly doubt that. And im almost positive there was not plate armor used in world war 2.
90-98% of society was non noble so saying they weren’t noble is rather self explanatory. The fact that they were peasants (and often yeoman’s at that) doesn’t mean they went into battle without proper protection.
I just jumped in this thread but you said something along the lines of
[quote]with axe and almost no armor at all,
[/quote]
Yes so I corrected you as you asked.
That’s is generally true but a musket has a bigger charge, higher caliber and perhaps most important, a long barrel. That pointy tip isn’t going to make much of a difference and i’d certainly argue that a musket is more powerful than a 9mm even against armor.
perhaps this thread on myarmory might provide some insight.
They didn’t drop it instantly it just got progressively heavier until they said it was to heavy.
Well the picture I posted has three guys wearing WWI plate armor and I think those dents weren’t made by particularly fast ping pong balls. Granted those shots were probably at some range.
As for WWII
?
The mustket ball is a round shape there fore it would be less effective against penetrating armor. It would be more likely just to bounce right off. We are also talking about a helmet. Correct me if im wrong but breastplates were generally thicker than helmets. Arrows could pierce plate and they go around 150 mph. A 9 mm would be around 1200 fps. At a distance of 10 feet or less im pretty sure it would go through. Even if it didn’t the man wearing the helmet would probably die from the force.
But since neither of us will agree we should probably end this argument.
Based on that pic, it looks like at least some of those archers are actually wearing brigandine, not “just” gambesons. Note the light-colored studs on the guys in the bottom-right corner.
Yeah i never said they were gambesons i just wanted to show him that archers did wear armor. Because he was making it seem like they went into battle naked.
So back to the original topic. I have yet to see a 180lb (80 kilos) bow tested against plate armor and if anyone has a video of it i would love to see it.
A musket ball is made out of lead, it deforms on impact and it not likely to “bounce” off. Anyways the shape is largely irrelevant when comparing a .85 cal musket to a 9mm pistol, 800 fps of a difference to be exact. The round shape is gonna start mattering when we increase the range and the round shape is detrimental to aerodynamic performance. At short range however a musket is still better than a 9mm.
You can’t compare arrows to bullets. Since bullets are lighter they need a bigger velocity for the same impact and penetration. Also who said arrows could pierce plate?
Anyways to bring the problem back to the beginning, I am pretty sure that helmet with a 6mm carbon steel visor could stop a 9mm if Dr. Tobias Capwell says so.
Seconded.
Though finding someone who could shoot one is going to be hard.
They can at close ranges. I believe its 20 meters or less.
Well i guess we’ll have to agree to disagree is this. I dont buy it because he didn’t test it. Even if it didn’t penetrate the guy inside is most likely dead. If guns were really that worthless against plate you would think the gun wouldn’t have become the dominant weapon and plate wouldn’t have gone out the window. I think we should leave it at that.
I think the development of cannons was kinda a factor as well. just saying.
