segmentata

[Matthew Amt]

"square head armor piecing arrows"

Kind of suspected this--we've covered it on a number of fora. (Not to be picking on you, Markus!)

The medieval square-section "bodkin" arrowhead has long been believed to be the heavy, shorter-range armor-piercing "sheaf" arrow, simply because it looks like it should be. Broadheads such as the common "type 16" (I think that's the number!) were believed to be the lighter, long-range "flight" arrows. Several medieval references make it clear that archers were supposed to carry 3 times as many sheaf arrows as flight arrows.

Problem is, EVERY surviving bodkin point which has been examined has turned out to be unhardened wrought iron, and very light in weight. The type 16s are always heavier, much harder, and three times as common. Surprise!! Bodkins are FLIGHT arrows, shaped as they are to cause less air resistance and go farther. The type 16s are the heavy killers, made to cut through padding and bodies and cause bad wounds.

Remember, most of the men even on a late medieval battlefield did not have complete metal armor, and most of the horses were not armored. So archers have plenty of juicy targets besides the knights. And it's interesting that bodkin-style arrowheads were also common in ancient cultures which had little or no armor! They simply fly better.

The tests were performed in the field, and then under a hydraulic weight/press system where the arrow head would be drawn up a device and then dropped at a certain level to simulate different ranges and/or weapons (such as the long bow, crossbow etc.)

This sounds nicely scientific, and I never thought about it before, but now I'm wondering how well a weight or press system, which is presumably accelerating as it drops, reproduces the flight of an arrow, which is likely DEcelerating due to drag? Though of course the arrow can be falling on long-range shots, hmm, but those would be with lighter arrows and indirect fire, hmm... Lots of complicated physics! The biggest question is still the construction of the mail.

Mind you, I'm not saying that mail is perfect protection, only that modern tests are often flawed and based on some strong misconceptions. And I still agree that plate is going to be better protection overall.

WellI suppose you are right, as I saw this as part of a documentary by a respected Broadcasting sevice, which is obviously wrong!

Hey, documentaries get things wrong ALL the time! The people making the shows are certainy NOT experts in everything they show, and they don't necessarily know which outside "experts" to consult. It can be very hard to tell what they're getting right. In this case, there seems to be a problem, is what we're saying. What you saw was not necessarily a realistic test, so it's probably not wise to base your beliefs on it so avidly.

Valete,

Matthew