Leather Armor? (NO HOLDS BARRED!!)

[Dan Howard]

A 12th century account by Gerald of Wales: "...in the war against the Welsh, one of the men of arms was struck by an arrow shot at him by a Welshman. It went right through his thigh, high up, where it was protected inside and outside the leg by his iron cuises, and then through the skirt of his leather tunic; next it penetrated that part of the saddle which is called the alva or seat; and finally it lodged in his horse, driving so deep that it killed the animal. (Itinerarium Cambriae, (1191))"

I will concede that there may have been an error in translation, and the 'arrow' may be a 'javelin'. However, it would still seem that plate was penetrable, even backed by mail and subarmalis. Also, I understand that not all bodkin arrowheads were made of iron, and some at least were made of steel.

There are indeed errors in translation. Gerald wrote some two centuries before plate armour was worn by the Normans. The armour in question was mail, not plate and Gerald is well known for gross exaggerations. In that translation "cuises" should be replaced with "chausses".

[Dan Howard]

Bear this in mind as well: "While I'm here I'll take the opportunity to remind you all that bodkin arrows spun in the air so as to 'drill' through knights' armor (just like a screwdriver!!)."

And from which primary source did this come? I can't find a single document that links the bodkin with armour piercing arrows.

[Tarbicus]

And from which primary source did this come? I can't find a single document that links the bodkin with armour piercing arrows.

Not my mistake, but maybe I was too hasty.


The Medieval English Longbow by Robert E. Kaiser, says that an arrow found in one of the turrets of the Chapter House in 1878 and, due to the construction of the war head, was probably made during the second half of the Hundred Years War. It then goes on to say that the type of war head, 'bearded' barbed, was devised to negate the protection offered by the combination mail and plate armour, which came into wide use after the Battle of Poitiers.

Published in the Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, volume 23, 1980.

This PDF paper, An Approach to the Study of Ancient Archery using Mathematical Modelling, states that it is quite possible for the draw weight of the Mary Rose longbows to be 450 N using the mathematical model. This would fire an arrow of 60 grams (Pages 15 & 16). Are the modern tests made using draw weights of 350 N, I wonder?

[Dan Howard]

There are plenty of secondary sources that claim the bodkin was an armour piercer. When you look at the evidence it is apparent that it is pure speculation. Armour-piercing arrows certainly existed (though only mail piercers, not plate). However, there is very little to suggest that the bodkin's primary purpose was as an armour piercer. I can put together a very convincing case that its primary intent was to increase range.

[Dan Howard]

FWIW I don't claim that any armour was totally invulnerable. My claim is that the chances or an arrow penetrating plate, or even good quality mail, under battlefield conditions, is so low as to be statistically negligible.

[Tarbicus]

Fair enough on the bodkin. I've also been reading up some more and it transpires that plate armour used by the French in the Hundred Years War had different thicknesses for different protective qualities over the body. The breastplate was thickest of all at the front and chest, whilst being thinner at the sides and back. Hence, the English archers seem to have attacked at the flanks in a likely attempt to penetrate the thinner plate?

Therefore, I'll concede the breastplate was better at stopping arrows (although I have yet to find a test conducted with the correct materiel using a bow of 450 N) at the front, but not at the sides or back.

Talbot at Castillon was found after the battle with "les cuisses et les jambes transpercees de fleches." Cuisses is also French for the upper leg, but in the context it is used it would most likely mean armour.

[url:kgtbowgy]http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf[/url] “it befell that an arrow struck him in the neck. He received this wound at the beginning of the battle. The arrow had knit together his gorget and his neck; but such was his will to bring to a finish the enterprise that he had entered upon that he felt not his wound…â€Â

[Tarbicus]

Sorry Dan, I missed your last post as it took ages to write my last one.

And sorry to all about drifting so off-topic, which I just realised. The Hundred Years War is not something I'll mention again here :oops:

[tlclark]

Again, assumptions and methodologies are everything.

let's do a thought experiment.

let's get a piece of plate armor and stipulate that it is of the highest quality for any given period.

Let's then shoot 1000 arrows at it, from every possible direction, angle and distance.

Let's then say that only 10 arrows penetrate the plate.

That's only a 1% success rate.

So therefore the plate is a success and we can declare arrows ineffective against plate correct?

Not necessarily. I've mentioned this before, but my brother used to design precision guided munitions. Many of his bombs were utlized for the first Gulf War. In the aftermath of the war action reports indicated that rougly 80% of all precision guided munitions missed their targets. At the time it was a minor public scandal. HOW could our weapons be so off! Back at the base, the engineers were popping champagne corks however. That was much better than they had predicted. Engineers expect a high failure rate, but compensated by VOLUME.

Let's go back to our hypothetical test which on first appearance seemed to show how good plate was.

Now consider it from a different perspective. How much would 1000 arrows cost compared to one set of plate armor? Even if the success rate was as low as 1%, It might still be a more effective strategy to outfit 1000 archers or 1000 pikemen than 100 knights. Longbows and arrows are much cheaper AND could be more effective that fielding a group of knights.

We employed just this same strategy in WWII. The German Tiger was the most advanced tank of the age, we cranked out 4 Shermans for every Tiger however, and despite it's smaller armament, range and firepower, 4 to 1 was pretty good odds.

Now whether this was a factor at Agincourt, I have no idea, but it relates to the whole question of leather armor. Our assumptions dictate how we interpret the evidence or experiments we make, but our assumptions could be totally wrong.

I think the assumptions that people have about leather armor are totally arbitrary or contemporary. Given that the evidence suggests leather armor, let's not try to shoehorn our assumptions into the evidence.

Travis

[hoplite14gr]

I think we are missing the point here. It is skin and leather we are discussing.
If I understood correctly most people think that hardened leather is offering protection while unhardened not so much and the folded leather "armor" is probably subarmalis.
Kind regards

[tlclark]

I think we are missing the point here. It is skin and leather we are discussing.

my bad, I brought it up and I deeply regret it. My apologies. It was a bad analogy and I defer to those that have more knowledge on this matter, though it doesn't detract from my original points.

If I understood correctly most people think that hardened leather is offering protection while unhardened not so much and the folded leather "armor" is probably subarmalis.
Kind regards

I could accept that with the Antoninus Pius statue. The presence of the Corinthian helmet gives us a clue that this is a heroic representation, not a factual one. However, the Bergama cuirass has all the features of a musculata, including the shoulder harnesses and muscled form, but it is obviously semi-rigid. Firm enough to hold a shape (so not quite hardened) but not as flexible as a leather garment.

The sidetrack about plate and the penetrating qualities of arrows was introduced by me (my apologies!) to demonstrate that failure of one type did not necessarily negate the armor from use, which I believe is Dan's position, that anything that flexible was inserviceable as armor and must be ceremonial. However, I believe that any arguments about it's utility (especially when we don't have a sample on hand and we don't know the environment or conditions of use) is arbitrary and only reflects contemporary concerns. Any utility might be enough to justify its use in combats.

Then there are the social implications. If most musculata are plate, and they are infinitely superior, why are leather cuirasses being singled out for representation with the emperor? There are only two conclusions. Either the social status of the object outweighs any issues of its practicality, or it was not nearly as inserviceable as we might think. I think the answer is likely to be a combination of both.

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

I have a question regarding the practicality of leather armor (used for battle) : Even if it could offer some protection, I can't imagine it taking a lot of punishment and retaining its shape.

Here's my big question : if it took any amount of damage, how do you repair it ? I mean, it's all one piece, right ? So, do you literally patch up the damage with strips of leather ? Or do you sew it up ?

It'll look like crap if you do either and so it loses its function as a morale-booster.

I just can't imagine it having a long life, which leads me to believe that it was very cheap.

[Dan Howard]

Talbot at Castillon was found after the battle with "les cuisses et les jambes transpercees de fleches." Cuisses is also French for the upper leg, but in the context it is used it would most likely mean armour.

Talbot made a promise to the French king never to wear armour in the field against him again in order to secure his release from imprisonment. At Castillon Talbot wore a brigandine, which apparently doesn't count as armour. His legs were either uncovered completely or he wore inferior protection on them so as to keep his promise.

[quote][url:38ux9lo1]http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf[/url] “it befell that an arrow struck him in the neck. He received this wound at the beginning of the battle. The arrow had knit together his gorget and his neck; but such was his will to bring to a finish the enterprise that he had entered upon that he felt not his wound…â€Â

[Tarbicus]

I have a question regarding the practicality of leather armor (used for battle) : Even if it could offer some protection, I can't imagine it taking a lot of punishment and retaining its shape. So, if it took any amount of damage, how do you repair it ? I mean, it's all one piece, right ? So, do you literally patch up the damage with strips of leather ? Or do you sew it up ?

If you were rich enough, how about just throw it away and wear a new one?

It'll look like crap if you do either and so it loses its function as a morale-booster.

That's subjective. Perhaps the boys in the ranks thought it gave the officer a veteran's look? Still splendid, but rough around the edges. On the other hand, he may just have worn a replacement.

I just can't imagine it having a long life, which leads me to believe that it was very cheap.

What does longevity have to do with it? Where did it say an officer had to buy equipment that would last all of his life? If a tribune, he was probably only going to be in the army for a few years anyway. Why spend all that money on something he may be glad to see the back of in a few years?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Hmm. Lets's suppose there WAS leather armour. But if we have no surviving original, we do not know how it was constructed, what kind of leather it was, how the leather was processed, and we still cannot make a reconstruction of it. So where's the point?

[Tarbicus]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: