Effectivness of European plate armour vs Asian bow

[billman]

Not made up on my part, though I admit I don't have the sources at hand. I also admit that Templar history pre and post disbandment is both shadowy and controversial at best. Yet their influence is obvious in both Scotland and Switzerland at these times. You even see their red cross on white field appear on the sails of Columbus' ships.

With regards to the Swiss, the battle of Laupen predates the incident you refer of, pike was in use there. I believe William Wallace and his journey to Rome was the influence on the Scots, though some historians do refer to the use of spears prior to this. Templar fugitives based in Scotland around the time of Robert Bruce seem to have spread some of these tactics back to the mainland. Again this is not my personal theory.

The 16th century in west oversaw a gradual change in the role of cavalry types from knights to cuirassiers and pistoliers. During the latter half of the 16th century full-body Maximilian armor was generally being replaced with what could be named three-quarter plate types. Polish Hussars had some other lighter yet still substantial variations. Only they and the Spanish really stuck with the lance in great numbers (still of use though). The French Compagnie d'Ordonnance of the start of the 16th was largely replaced by the Huguenot style of pistol and sword charge by the end. Parma even named Navarre a captain of light-horse. The nation's neglect of developing their own quality infantry in this period would cost them throughout this century. In the Italian wars it was mainly the pike and shot German and Spanish infantry that won out the latter battles. Though at Pavia supporting artillery fire was prevented by the sudden charge.

However you can even see heavy style plate-armored cavalry in use as late as the battle of Roundway Down, where they lost to more professional lightly armored cavalry despite having the high ground.

[Temüjin]

Red Cross on White was used by many Military Orders, particularly on the Iberian Penninsula, it's not necessary a thing of the Templers. the use of the pike by Flemish mercenaries was according to my research induced by Emperor Maximilian. the change from halberd to pike by the Swiss was between the battles of Arbedo and St. Jacob-en-Birs. all those events took place way over a century after the destruction of the Order of the Templars, left alone the Templars themselves were a mounted, not an infantry force known for the use of pikes. the use of spears was commonplace in all those regions though, and the schiltron formation too was commonplace. even if you compare the Scottish Army using spears/pikes during Wallace's rebellion and later the Scottish pike formations in the early 16th century are not identical, the latter clearly inspired by the Swiss pike blocks that came en vogue at that time.

[billman]

Yes however in Colombus' case his father in law did have an association. Evidence of this early international entity going underground exists even 100 years after. As does escapes to places such as Scotland and German states prior to French monarchy's crackdown. Symbols and weapons aren't the only indications too, international banking influences for example, but as stated controversial.

Of course the 16th century pike tactics did not exactly resemble a schiltron. They did resemble a formed 'charge of points' attack on foot though. Flodden was even a kind of Agincourt for the Scots. This classical age revival happened at Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, Golden Spurs, and Laupen prior to Sempach and Arbedo. Not so much or well before Stirling Bridge back to classical ages though, despite the use of pole-weapons.

Apology for taking this thread so off subject. I wanted to shed some information on how both plate armor and heavy cavalry by no means assure the advantage in hand to hand. Despite having their own unique advantages.

[Temüjin]

Jan 10, 2010 18:54:40 GMT 3 billman said:

Of course the 16th century pike tactics did not exactly resemble a schiltron. They did resemble a formed 'charge of points' attack on foot though. Flodden was even a kind of Agincourt for the Scots. This classical age revival happened at Stirling Bridge, Bannockburn, Golden Spurs, and Laupen prior to Sempach and Arbedo. Not so much or well before Stirling Bridge back to classical ages though, despite the use of pole-weapons.

actually, i always found the charge of points, unique to european knights, was essentially the opposite to what you described, that is a push of pikes on horseback. i think this makes sense if you look at the origin of knights in europe, from mounted infantry in the Frankish Empire to counter Viking and Magyar incursions. so given this premise, the pike-block was a return to the roots, so to say.

Apology for taking this thread so off subject.

fine with me as long as no one complains. on another note, the Portuguese air force still has the red cross on white as roundels on their planes.

[sharshuvuu]

The heavily-armored horseman originated, I believe, among the Persians. The cataphract was an important element in the Byzantine army; apparently the idea was picked up from the Persians.

It seems to me that the "Mongolian" bow was developed as the steppe warrior's response to the appearance of the cataphract in the forces of his settled opponents. The cataphract's armor stopped arrows from the Scythian bow more easily, so the Mongolian style was devised to give the arrows more force to penetrate the cataphract's armor. All of this, of course, far antedates the late European plate armor, but the latter is the last stage of the development that began with the cataphract of Persian late antiquity. Through most of the history of heavily armored cavalry, what plates there were were comparatively small additions to chain mail or lamellar.

Was the full suit of plate armor a European response to the bad experience of European armies in encounters with the steppe forces of the thirteenth & following centuries? I don't have the answer to that. But I seriously doubt that if the Western armies at Liegnitz had had sixteenth-century platel they would have done much better.

Sharshuvuu

[greyknight]

Just a little FYI for you guys. A horse bow has an average draw weight of about 45-70 lbs. thats pretty good for short distance shots. An English longbow has a draw weight of 130-180 lbs. Just like those found on the Mary Rose. That bow could make a deadly shot anywhere from 200- 400 yards. The idea that a horse bow, Arab bow, or whatever has the same OR MORE power than a long bow is not only impossible but LAUGHABLE! Horse bows and composite recurve bows are TOO SMALL to generate the kind of power it takes to penetrate plate armour, greater than munitions grade, that being just plane iron plate. Milanese hardened steel armour was nearly arrow proof against ENGLISH LONG BOWS let alone horse bows. Watch the history channel series about the long bow and you will see. I have fired both horse bows, long bows and the like, agianst varying targets such as 14 guage steel plate. The horse bow BARELY made a small hole at 20 yards!!!!! The long bow was able to penetrate about 1 1/2 inch to 2 inches at the most!!! Against hardened steel plate the arrows of both bows simply DEFLECTED!!!!! unless they hit a hard interior contour. then they simply made a 1/2 inch divit. I DONT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO SAYS A HORSE BOW can penetrate hardened tempered steel plate. IT IS LAUGHABLE. LONG BOWS AT 180 pound draw at 100 yards can barely begin to do the job. It takes a long bow of 180 pound draw at a range of less than 40 yards to damage hardened plate armour of Milanese grade. If you have a horse bow test it out against properly heat treated plate steel and suffice to say IT WILL BOUNCE OFF! IVE DONE IT AND SEEN IT!!!

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Hi greyknight, welcome aboard

[sarmat]

Nov 7, 2010 10:03:14 GMT 3 greyknight said:

Just a little FYI for you guys. A horse bow has an average draw weight of about 45-70 lbs. thats pretty good for short distance shots. An English longbow has a draw weight of 130-180 lbs. Just like those found on the Mary Rose. That bow could make a deadly shot anywhere from 200- 400 yards. The idea that a horse bow, Arab bow, or whatever has the same OR MORE power than a long bow is not only impossible but LAUGHABLE! Horse bows and composite recurve bows are TOO SMALL to generate the kind of power it takes to penetrate plate armour, greater than munitions grade, that being just plane iron plate. Milanese hardened steel armour was nearly arrow proof against ENGLISH LONG BOWS let alone horse bows. Watch the history channel series about the long bow and you will see. I have fired both horse bows, long bows and the like, agianst varying targets such as 14 guage steel plate. The horse bow BARELY made a small hole at 20 yards!!!!! The long bow was able to penetrate about 1 1/2 inch to 2 inches at the most!!! Against hardened steel plate the arrows of both bows simply DEFLECTED!!!!! unless they hit a hard interior contour. then they simply made a 1/2 inch divit. I DONT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO SAYS A HORSE BOW can penetrate hardened tempered steel plate. IT IS LAUGHABLE. LONG BOWS AT 180 pound draw at 100 yards can barely begin to do the job. It takes a long bow of 180 pound draw at a range of less than 40 yards to damage hardened plate armour of Milanese grade. If you have a horse bow test it out against properly heat treated plate steel and suffice to say IT WILL BOUNCE OFF! IVE DONE IT AND SEEN IT!!!

Long bow is just an ineffecient piece of wood. Mongol or Korean bow is a piece of art that uses advance technologies for its manufacturing and definitely is a much more deadly weapon which is proved. Perhaps you used some modern amateir bows. You have to get a real Mongolian or Korean bow to do the comparison.

The fact that the long bow required a lot of power to draw means nothing. It also requited a lot of power from a caveman to throw a rock at a mamoth, for a modern man to pull of trigger would be enough...

[greyknight]

Actually the horse bow I used was built by a man of Hungarian lineage who was a seventh generation bow maker. The longbow I used was made of Yew and made by a west coast bow maker. West coast yew, not English, however Yew none the less. The idea isnt that Im saying the horsebow is not an engineering marvel , as much as imsaying what you are making with any bow is a spring plane and simple. The more tension on the spring and the bigger the spring the more force it will exert when released. Its simple math.

[hjernespiser]

Actually I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. You make some vague claims about draw weights and armor penetration with nothing other than anecdote to back it up.

[greyknight]

Please also keep in mind that my statement isnt pro longbow or anti composite/ horse bow, the point I was making is more that by the early 1500s high carbon forged and tempered plate armour was virtually ARROW PROOF by attack from any hand fired bow except the cranked crossbows and eventually firearms! What the archers at Agincourt faced off against were French knights who became bogged down by the muddy terrain of the field in their initial charge and subsequently were pelted to death with arrows. Eventually an arrow is bound to find a crease, vision slit, or weak point somewhere when you have 40+ arrows hitting your armour repeatedly!!!! I own and shoot both of these bows, which are no shoddy repros, but the real deals. I actually prefer my composite bow or my compound bow for deer hunting because of its compact size. I would never dream of dragging my 78" longbow into the thick woods for hunting. What makes a composite bow made of antler and wood work as a bow is that they took flexable materials and glued them together with hide glue then wrapped them in a recurve to produce a high tension springiness for only being 3 or so feet in length. They shoot with a fast straight trajectory, are capable of being rapidly reloaded and aimed at a moving target while you are also moving, and are designed to be fired from a seated position on horseback or on foot. An English longbow was the "machine gun" of its day. Made of selfwood, most often Yew but sometimes Elm or Ash. They were used in great mass to propel volley after volley of arrows into the opposing sides ranks. The Longbow had a 130-180 pound draw because it was one giant solid piece of material and the specially selected staves were chosen from select woods that produced an extremely powerful spring effect. Though they looked rough made and crude they were made that way because it wasnt necessary to have a beauty, just a highly functional shooter. Also note that the tillering process was done by skilled craftsmen who knew just how much of the heartwood to remove and keep a long line of ring layer visible down the length of the bow without carving in too far and reducing its forward release power. They didnt just hack down a sapling and say "well Henry, tie a string to both ends of that bad boy and there ya go mate!" This weapon was fired while on foot by ranks of archers who like their eastern counterparts began training from the time they could hold a bow. One nice thing about the longbow is that ITS AN ALL WEATHER BOW. Even when soaked it still performed just as well as it did dry.

[greyknight]

Thank you Ihsan, glad to be here. I am a huge lover of history and of coarse archery!!!!

[greyknight]

Theres nothing vague hjernespiser about the poundages of the bows I am referring to. The weights that both bows take to pull back are historically backed up by surviving examples from the ship wreak of the Mary Rose,as well as horsebows made to this day the same way they've been made for 2000 years. and I own examples of these bows that are as faithful to the originals as is possible. I am also a blacksmith and have many friends who are armorers. I Have studied the art for close to 16 years now and have had the privilage of examining first hand some real historical examples of plate armour. The tests I performed were done on both un heat treated plain, or mild low carbon steel and then against tempered steel armour of 14 gauge and 16 gauge thicknesses.

[greyknight]

The tests I am referring to can be duplicated by anyone who has access to the same bows and types of armour and the ability to pull and fire said bows. Breast plates make the easiest targets to get a good shot on with the least curvature of target surface. My horse bow has a 65 lb draw. Now the longbow I used was 130 pound draw weight, I will admit im not capable of pulling a 180 lb draw longbow. If I were I would have scapula that have fused together and an enlarged left arm lol. Essentially the skeletal structure of an English archer.

[greyknight]

Bear in mind too that these bows I used are average examples of both. NOT the most powerful examples of both, however on You Tube you can see men using heavy weight English longbows 140- 170 lb draw against plate armour and that eventually after being repeatedly shot in the same area over and over agian, the points do begin to penetrate the breastplate by about an inch and a half or so. Still not enough penetration to kill the wearer.