Medieval
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
218 comments displayed.
#2
-
conisnon (01/05/2016) [-] 
What? But what about heavy, bludgeon weapons like war hammers?
Hell, even high drawback bows could still do some heavy internal damage.
Thats the very reason why plate armor is better, it spreads the shock damage.
oh well, I suppose if you do get hit, at least the chain mail would still be okay
Hell, even high drawback bows could still do some heavy internal damage.
Thats the very reason why plate armor is better, it spreads the shock damage.
oh well, I suppose if you do get hit, at least the chain mail would still be okay
#351 to #2
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
War hammers and the like were not as commonplace when maille was prevalent. Bows with strong draws weren't common, either, and properly riveted maille with a padded backing would easily prevent most projectiles from penetrating.
Yes, plate is better. It was developed in response to the weapons that were developed in response to maille. It's also expensive and technologically advanced, by comparison, and was not found commonly until it became cheaper and more easily produced. At which point, as the posts suggest, the weapons utilized again changed.
Use your head, chief.
Yes, plate is better. It was developed in response to the weapons that were developed in response to maille. It's also expensive and technologically advanced, by comparison, and was not found commonly until it became cheaper and more easily produced. At which point, as the posts suggest, the weapons utilized again changed.
Use your head, chief.
#27 to #2
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] "especially arrows"
Unless it was the incredibly rare expensive kind, arrows would often slip through the holes.
Unless it was the incredibly rare expensive kind, arrows would often slip through the holes.
#203 to #27
-
meganinja ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Slip through the holes?
An arrow head wouldn't even fit through one of the holes at a perfect angle, before taking into account that the holes overlap. What's more likely to happen is that it's going to break a few chains and then pierce through anyways.
An arrow head wouldn't even fit through one of the holes at a perfect angle, before taking into account that the holes overlap. What's more likely to happen is that it's going to break a few chains and then pierce through anyways.
#173 to #171
-
heartbleed ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] 
There's an arrow vs butted mail, penetrates easily.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdGUMulJUI
Here's an arrow vs riveted mail (much more expensive, but more durable).
It doesn't punch through it and if you had a gambeson or leather it would stop it but then again these are probably 90lb bows, English longbows were known to go 120lb + draw weight, so that's fairly weak. I'd expect a 120lb bow to punch straight through.
#308 to #173
-
emagehttsol (01/05/2016) [-] Just saying but I think a 90lb draw weight bow made today would probably be better than that 120lb bow back then.
#218 to #214
-
galanorth ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Un-tempered mild steel is far from useless, as long as it has been hammer-hardened. In the process of flattening the rings, they become hammer-hardened, which is a form of case hardening. I make armor, and have seen armor tested against all kinds of weapons. 16 gauge mild steel plate can stop 9mm and .45 ACP despite not being tempered. Also, tempered maille armor is extremely rare, it was made of wrought iron during the middle ages (which did not have enough carbon content to be tempered) and it is made of mild steel today (again, not enough carbon), and yet they work just fine against most weapons.
#255 to #218
-
doctorpibber (01/05/2016) [-] Wow, I have a bit of an obsession about plate armour (especially Gothic types). What made you get into smithing and how do you find someone that will teach you??
#267 to #255
-
galanorth ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] I've also have always been obsessed with plate armor, especially German Gothic and Maximillian. I found out that a sculpture professor at the College I used to go to was a blacksmith, and had made armor in the past, so I spoke with him about a independent study. Most of what I know actually came from the book "Techniques of Medieval Armor Reproduction" by Brian R. Price, it is a huge 500 page book that will give you a great start, and I also watched a lot of videos, mostly Eric Dubé, of making armor, and just tried to do what they do. I spend about 3 months of practicing techniques on scrap metal before I actually started to make armor, even then my first piece was horrible, but my second piece was that leg harness above, and it turned out pretty great for only my second piece I ever made. Point is, you can teach yourself if you are willing to go through a little trial and error.
#207 to #173
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] I'd do the same but:
1. An English longbow was not the average medieval bow used in war.
2. The film doesn't show it but it seems like they fired relatively close by which would most probably not happen in a real battle
3. The average shot would probably not hit the mail straight but from an angle which diminishes the penetrative strength
4. The arrowhead used in the video is a bodkin head which is designed to pierce armour. Broadheads(which do more tissue damage when piercing the skin) were more often used as a lot of soldiers in the early and high middle ages couldn't afford mail
1. An English longbow was not the average medieval bow used in war.
2. The film doesn't show it but it seems like they fired relatively close by which would most probably not happen in a real battle
3. The average shot would probably not hit the mail straight but from an angle which diminishes the penetrative strength
4. The arrowhead used in the video is a bodkin head which is designed to pierce armour. Broadheads(which do more tissue damage when piercing the skin) were more often used as a lot of soldiers in the early and high middle ages couldn't afford mail
#129 to #2
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-] Please, you don't even need war hammers. Just get a stick with some metal studs at the end, and you'll be breaking bones left and right.
Seriously though, each of the 3 main categories of armor had their strengths and weaknesses. Plate was weak to bodkin arrows and weapons that could punch through metal (also were super hot). Mail was incredible against slicing and piercing weapons, but fell flat against blunt force that would break bones. Leather armor was cheaper, more easily repairable (since it was essentially a tunic/cloak made out of squares of cured leather sewn to overlap), but didn't have the overbearing protective properties of either of its metal competitors.
The whole reason the 800s~ to the 1500s~ are interesting is because each weapon or armor or strategy innovation would breed its natural counter.
Horses terrorizing formations? Introduce the billhook to yank riders off. Plate mail too difficult to bring down? Bodkin point arrows, here we come.
Seriously though, each of the 3 main categories of armor had their strengths and weaknesses. Plate was weak to bodkin arrows and weapons that could punch through metal (also were super hot). Mail was incredible against slicing and piercing weapons, but fell flat against blunt force that would break bones. Leather armor was cheaper, more easily repairable (since it was essentially a tunic/cloak made out of squares of cured leather sewn to overlap), but didn't have the overbearing protective properties of either of its metal competitors.
The whole reason the 800s~ to the 1500s~ are interesting is because each weapon or armor or strategy innovation would breed its natural counter.
Horses terrorizing formations? Introduce the billhook to yank riders off. Plate mail too difficult to bring down? Bodkin point arrows, here we come.
#59 to #2
-
sifterthesniperz (01/05/2016) [-]
Hence, it was common to wear chainmail on top of leather armour, to disperse the shock.
#114 to #108
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] the average soldier back in the day wore either no armor or leather.
lower nobility had hard-leather and sometimes even a rather ****** chain-mail.
Higher nobility had the best of the best , full Mail with leather underneath for extra protection, because Chainmail itself is not just **** , it's THE most expensive type of armor.
Plate mail was not just easier and cheaper to produce, but also a lot more effective, and contrary to popular belief, gave you a lot more mobility than Chain-mail, because it was lighter.
lower nobility had hard-leather and sometimes even a rather ****** chain-mail.
Higher nobility had the best of the best , full Mail with leather underneath for extra protection, because Chainmail itself is not just **** , it's THE most expensive type of armor.
Plate mail was not just easier and cheaper to produce, but also a lot more effective, and contrary to popular belief, gave you a lot more mobility than Chain-mail, because it was lighter.
#224 to #181
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] well thickly stacked leather is actually quite effective for it's price, only downside is, when leather becomes thick enough to protect you like plate , you're basically just a statue.
#178 to #114
-
raisinbeuponhim (01/05/2016) [-]
Thas ******** . Nearly everyone wore Gambersone because it is not only by far cheaper to make but also more resistend to most form of attacks.
That biker leather fetish wear we are seeing everywhere in todays movie is just a product made up by hollywood.
That biker leather fetish wear we are seeing everywhere in todays movie is just a product made up by hollywood.
#232 to #178
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] you do realize the length of the middle-ages yes?
600-1700 is a long time.
Gamberson wasn't a thing until way into 1300, and even then wasn't widely used until 1500
600-1700 is a long time.
Gamberson wasn't a thing until way into 1300, and even then wasn't widely used until 1500
#316 to #232
-
migueldecervantes (01/05/2016) [-]
Technically, it's 476 - 1453.
Then, 15th to end of 18th century is the modern period (renaissance, Columbian exchange, age of reason, enlightenment).
Then, 15th to end of 18th century is the modern period (renaissance, Columbian exchange, age of reason, enlightenment).
#347 to #316
-
internetexplain (01/06/2016) [-] m8 the renaisance wasn't a thing, nothing really changed except art.
besides, the way I was taught in school it's basically
everything between Justinian the Great and the Industrial revolution = middle ages.
besides, the way I was taught in school it's basically
everything between Justinian the Great and the Industrial revolution = middle ages.
#353 to #347
-
migueldecervantes (01/06/2016) [-]
Then, I guess it is due to your poor American education that you do not understand the importance of the Renaissance in world history.
No, you idiot, it was not "only art lol srsly br8 wut r u saying?" There was a bit more to it than that.
For instance, the Italian acquisition of Greek philosophical texts and Roman literature (Plautus, Terence and Virgil mostly). These are new ideas, and they causally led to humanism, which is exactly why we call subjects like philosophy, history, politics, etc. "humanities".
And what the **** does Justinian I have to ******* do with the Middle Ages, you troglodytic imbecile?
There's also the fact that I didn't mention the ******* Renaissance as a separate category, but set it up as part of the Modern Period. Why did you not comment on the enlightenment? Or the Columbian exchange? Do they not count because they're "only filozophy & comerse lol srsly br8 wut r u sayin"?
You should probably stick with explaining the internet, and keep away from philosophy. Google anything historians say about the middle ages and you will find they tend to either end it in 1453, 1492 or vaguely in the 15th century.
No, you idiot, it was not "only art lol srsly br8 wut r u saying?" There was a bit more to it than that.
For instance, the Italian acquisition of Greek philosophical texts and Roman literature (Plautus, Terence and Virgil mostly). These are new ideas, and they causally led to humanism, which is exactly why we call subjects like philosophy, history, politics, etc. "humanities".
And what the **** does Justinian I have to ******* do with the Middle Ages, you troglodytic imbecile?
There's also the fact that I didn't mention the ******* Renaissance as a separate category, but set it up as part of the Modern Period. Why did you not comment on the enlightenment? Or the Columbian exchange? Do they not count because they're "only filozophy & comerse lol srsly br8 wut r u sayin"?
You should probably stick with explaining the internet, and keep away from philosophy. Google anything historians say about the middle ages and you will find they tend to either end it in 1453, 1492 or vaguely in the 15th century.
#355 to #354
-
migueldecervantes (01/06/2016) [-]
Okay, I'm sorry.
But you were wrong, and you ought to be man enough to admit it.
But you were wrong, and you ought to be man enough to admit it.
#356 to #355
-
internetexplain (01/06/2016) [-] anyway, there are a lot of ways to look at things and the way my teacher decided to look at things was Socially, to her the Middle-ages really kicked off around the time Islam became a thing and Rome was trying to preserve the Empire , all the way to when Human rights and the Industrial revolution popped up.
European societies at large didn't exactly change all that much until way into the enlightenment.
And the reason why I'm saying the renaisance wasn't a thing is , is because frankly no one knew it was a thing until fairly recently.
An era that took place exclusively for the wealthy , which as you know is a small portion of people , shouldn't be considered as such, just because we like the thought of it.
Sure in retrospect you can give the renaisance some importance, but it didn't exactly change things for the people living in it.
European societies at large didn't exactly change all that much until way into the enlightenment.
And the reason why I'm saying the renaisance wasn't a thing is , is because frankly no one knew it was a thing until fairly recently.
An era that took place exclusively for the wealthy , which as you know is a small portion of people , shouldn't be considered as such, just because we like the thought of it.
Sure in retrospect you can give the renaisance some importance, but it didn't exactly change things for the people living in it.
#357 to #356
-
migueldecervantes (01/06/2016) [-]
You're right about it not affecting most people in any way at the time, yet if a period in history has a great impact on the present it ought to be given at least some emphasis.
At the very least, it could be considered "medieval" still, but I cannot accept that such 17th century thinkers as Leibniz, Descartes or Newton can be said to be anything but Modern.
I usually trace the beginning of the Modern Period with these three: humanities in philosophy, cultural revolution (what we generally mean by "renaissance") and the scientific method. In my view, what you describe as the end of the middle ages, is in fact the end of the modern period and the beginning of the contemporary era.
At the very least, it could be considered "medieval" still, but I cannot accept that such 17th century thinkers as Leibniz, Descartes or Newton can be said to be anything but Modern.
I usually trace the beginning of the Modern Period with these three: humanities in philosophy, cultural revolution (what we generally mean by "renaissance") and the scientific method. In my view, what you describe as the end of the middle ages, is in fact the end of the modern period and the beginning of the contemporary era.
#302 to #232
-
raisinbeuponhim (01/05/2016) [-]
Yes i do , but that doesn't change that over the majority of the time nobody wore actuall leather armor. What had been interpreted as leather armor most of the times where the studded leather armor - which are metal plates fixed on the intirior of a leather west.
SImply said the leather was merely the fixing materiell for the plates and even this type of armor was only used for a very short ammount of time .
And thats for a simple reason. If leather tears , thorugh either combat or day to day stuff , it is pretty hard to repair whereas gamberson was rather easily to repair because it was just loin.
For the same reason why the roman army switched from mail to plate then back again to mail. Plate is harder to repair and is time consuming to keep it intackt and clean , wheres mail is easier to produce and by far easier to repair on the battlefield.
SImply said the leather was merely the fixing materiell for the plates and even this type of armor was only used for a very short ammount of time .
And thats for a simple reason. If leather tears , thorugh either combat or day to day stuff , it is pretty hard to repair whereas gamberson was rather easily to repair because it was just loin.
For the same reason why the roman army switched from mail to plate then back again to mail. Plate is harder to repair and is time consuming to keep it intackt and clean , wheres mail is easier to produce and by far easier to repair on the battlefield.
#248 to #247
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] fair enough , but still my point remains.
at least 40% of the middle-ages were without gambeson.
at least 40% of the middle-ages were without gambeson.
#251 to #250
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] a stiff vest made from hardened leather, similar to brigandines , much like the ancient greeks and the mongols wore them.
#258 to #251
-
cherubium (01/05/2016) [-] Right leather lamellar armor.
The Linothorax which i'm assuming you are refering to isn't actually known if it was made in leather or cloth but the name hints at it being cloth although there probably was versions made with either material.
mongol lamellar armor for anyone wondering.
The Linothorax which i'm assuming you are refering to isn't actually known if it was made in leather or cloth but the name hints at it being cloth although there probably was versions made with either material.
mongol lamellar armor for anyone wondering.
#259 to #258
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] well that's not quite it, but it's the closest thing I guess.
#264 to #263
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] yeah that comes closer already, but I was thinking a single piece.
Idk how to describe it.
Looks like plate but is brown I guess?
Idk how to describe it.
Looks like plate but is brown I guess?
#4 to #2
-
trostell ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Chain mail is actually more effective against blunt strikes than plate is, due to the fact chain mail is flexible.That's one of the reasons why warhammers and large maces weren't prevalent until the advent of plate armor.
Chain mail would flex upon impact, and ripple the force of the blow across a wider area. It'd still hurt and likely injure, but not to the extend of plate, which would buckle under the impact.
Chain mail's biggest weakness was also the cause of its flexibility. Thrusting attacks, like those of a spear or heavy arrow, could split the rings individually, nullifying their advantage.
Another misconception is that warhammers are actually heavy...they're not. Most warhammers weighed around the same as a good strong sword, but the weight is all focused on the head of the hammer instead of just in front of the hand.
Chain mail would flex upon impact, and ripple the force of the blow across a wider area. It'd still hurt and likely injure, but not to the extend of plate, which would buckle under the impact.
Chain mail's biggest weakness was also the cause of its flexibility. Thrusting attacks, like those of a spear or heavy arrow, could split the rings individually, nullifying their advantage.
Another misconception is that warhammers are actually heavy...they're not. Most warhammers weighed around the same as a good strong sword, but the weight is all focused on the head of the hammer instead of just in front of the hand.
#274 to #262
-
eiaisqzbsesb (01/05/2016) [-] Most fighting men who didn't use plate wore chainmail over or under a Gamberson, which is essentialy a thick, compact linnen coat. The gamberson would require a cutting edge to get through, while the chainmail is mainly weak to narrow, piercing thrusts. This is why templars, for example, were described as looking like hedgehogs. Because broad-headed arrows coldn't get through their chainmail, while armor-piercing ones can't get through their gamberson.
#169 to #4
-
heartbleed ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Chainmail was also effective against swords too, well slashing attacks anyways.
#276 to #4
-
fiveblackmen (01/05/2016) [-] That just isn't true. Chain mail was made to stop slashing and piercing blows, which is was quite good at but its flexibility meant that it couldn't distribute the force of a heavy blow very far. When a sword or arrow hit the chain mail, the victim would feel the hit and be damaged by the attack, usually in the form of bruising or fractured/broken bones, but would not get cut. Obviously the chain mail's ability to hold up to such piercing or slashing attacks depended on its quality and the actual weapon being used against it. When a heavy weapon, such as a mace hit someone in chain mail, the mail would not break but its wearer's bones sure would.
Plate, on the other hand, was much better at distributing a blows force across a wider area. Yes, plate would bend and buckle, but its rigidity is what allowed it to potentially withstand heavy blows without the wearer's bones shattering. The only reason there weren't more people wearing plate is because it was so damn expensive. It was also heavy as **** and making it thick enough to not buckle under a heavy hit would mean the wearer would probably be unable to move in it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymBF3nfhCU This is a video were they talk about a few different types of medieval armor. At about 3:27 you can see what a mace does to a wooden dummy wearing chain mail.
Plate, on the other hand, was much better at distributing a blows force across a wider area. Yes, plate would bend and buckle, but its rigidity is what allowed it to potentially withstand heavy blows without the wearer's bones shattering. The only reason there weren't more people wearing plate is because it was so damn expensive. It was also heavy as **** and making it thick enough to not buckle under a heavy hit would mean the wearer would probably be unable to move in it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymBF3nfhCU This is a video were they talk about a few different types of medieval armor. At about 3:27 you can see what a mace does to a wooden dummy wearing chain mail.
#290 to #4
-
madvulture (01/05/2016) [-]
Chainmail was effective against edged weapons because they would spread out the force of the blow, stopping it from tearing through the skin basically making it a blunt strike. It would still hurt like hell though...
Plate armor is effective against blunt weapons because of the same prinsiple.. It spreds the force of the impact over a larger area and probably end up dented. But if you hit it with an edged or spiked weapon it might not give in, but rather get pierced.
The people wearing plate armor usually had chain mail underneath, making them more resistant to both kinds of attack.
Plate armor is effective against blunt weapons because of the same prinsiple.. It spreds the force of the impact over a larger area and probably end up dented. But if you hit it with an edged or spiked weapon it might not give in, but rather get pierced.
The people wearing plate armor usually had chain mail underneath, making them more resistant to both kinds of attack.
#133 to #3
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Actually arrows are almost useless against riveted armor.
It takes a full power of a war longbow with a 90lbs draw or a good composite bow (mongol type) to pierce a riveted chainmail.
70 lbs longbow will barely get through the mail and will be stopped by gambeson under the maile. Don't forget armor was worn in layers. And that's when 70lbs longbow was shot at the armor at 15 feet.
Butted chainmail offers little to no protection though.
It takes a full power of a war longbow with a 90lbs draw or a good composite bow (mongol type) to pierce a riveted chainmail.
70 lbs longbow will barely get through the mail and will be stopped by gambeson under the maile. Don't forget armor was worn in layers. And that's when 70lbs longbow was shot at the armor at 15 feet.
Butted chainmail offers little to no protection though.
#208 to #133
-
alucardhell (01/05/2016) [-] You are underestimating the draw on war longbows. As far as we can tell from the records, their draw weight was closer to 120-150 lbs.
#230 to #208
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] I was actually going in kilos, because why wouldn't I make an ass out of myself.
Yeah, they actually went higher, Longbows came in range from 100–185 lbs draw weight.
The ones recovered from Mary Celeste were in 150-165 range.
Yeah, they actually went higher, Longbows came in range from 100–185 lbs draw weight.
The ones recovered from Mary Celeste were in 150-165 range.
#39 to #2
-
feedtehtrollz (01/05/2016) [-] it says chain-mail was nearly impervious to all attacks, not the ******** wearing it. But yes bludgeoning weapons would still do nasty damage to a person wearing chain-mail... even more so to someone wearing your superior plate armour because chain-mail doesn't cave on on the wearer from blunt strikes like a chest plate would. I will agree that a high drawback bow would do more damage to someone wearing chain-mail than someone wearing plate.
Chain-mail and padded armour was still more widely used because it was less expensive and didn't restrict your movements as much, the bulk of an army would be wearing chain-mail or padded armour because of this.
Chain-mail and padded armour was still more widely used because it was less expensive and didn't restrict your movements as much, the bulk of an army would be wearing chain-mail or padded armour because of this.
#215 to #39
-
galanorth ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] "But yes bludgeoning weapons would still do nasty damage to a person wearing chain-mail... even more so to someone wearing your superior plate armour because chain-mail doesn't cave on on the wearer from blunt strikes like a chest plate would."
lolwut. Plate armor does not cave in so easily, you've been watching too many cold steel videos. Proper plate armor is made of 14-18 gauge steel (It varies depending on what piece it is, a helmet will be 14 gauge but a greave could be 18-20 gauge).If it is mild steel a flanged mace or a warhammer only makes small, almost inconsequential dents the size of a dime in the armor that look like hail damage on a car, a poleax makes pretty substantial dents, not nothing even approaching "caved-in", maybe 3 or 4 times bigger than a flanged mace. If the armor is made of spring steel the dent resistance is significantly increased. Source: Me, I make historical armor and have seen armor be tested against all sorts of weapons.
lolwut. Plate armor does not cave in so easily, you've been watching too many cold steel videos. Proper plate armor is made of 14-18 gauge steel (It varies depending on what piece it is, a helmet will be 14 gauge but a greave could be 18-20 gauge).If it is mild steel a flanged mace or a warhammer only makes small, almost inconsequential dents the size of a dime in the armor that look like hail damage on a car, a poleax makes pretty substantial dents, not nothing even approaching "caved-in", maybe 3 or 4 times bigger than a flanged mace. If the armor is made of spring steel the dent resistance is significantly increased. Source: Me, I make historical armor and have seen armor be tested against all sorts of weapons.
#333 to #215
-
tommylocks (01/05/2016) [-] you are the guy that makes armor as a job and sometime pops out of the blue and hits us with practical knowledge.
I like you.
I like you.
#344 to #215
-
feedtehtrollz (01/06/2016) [-] You're probably correct, but metallurgy back then wasn't as good as what we have today, and if the plate ever cracked from sustained damage it would increase the odds of the armour buckling under pressure... I didn't say it'd happen from every blow but it still happened frequently enough that it was a real issue for men at arms during a battle.
#346 to #344
-
galanorth ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] The wrought iron used in early plate armor (e.g. 1300-1450AD) had a slag content of about 1.5-2.2% slag with virtually no carbon in it (Williams, p.940 appendix 4-5), Its estimated fracture toughness is around 200 kJ/m^2. An impact test shows that it takes over 190 J of impact energy to create a 5mm fracture into a 15 gauge (about right for a helm or a cuirass) plate of said iron, or 90 J to produce a tiny fracture 5mm in length on a 19 gauge plate (about right for lower leg, forearm, or bicep defenses). (Williams, p.942 appendix 7)
190 J is the same amount of impact energy required at a "High Striker" carnival game to shoot a 1kg iron bar 19.4 meters into the air, 90 J would get it 9.2 meters into the air. A proper english/welsh war bow can hit up to about 200 J at 20 meters, and I cannot find a good test of how hard a mace or poleax can hit where they actually measured the impact energy.
Now, that was iron with 1.5-2.2% slag with virtually no carbon, but the steel used for later armors (e.g. 1450-1520AD) is a completely different animal. The steel used in German armor during this time had less than 0.5% slag in it (Williams, p.492) and a carbon content of around .5% or so, and would be tempered in a way that it would be quite springy in nature (Edge, p.233-256), so its dent and fracture resistance would be even better.
Sources:
Edge, D., & Williams, A. (2001). A study of the German 'Gothic'C’ 15TH-century equestrian armor (A21) in the Wallace Collection, London. Gladius, 233-256.
Williams, A. (2003). The knight and the blast furnace: A history of the metallurgy of armour in the Middle Ages & the early modern period. Leiden: Brill.
190 J is the same amount of impact energy required at a "High Striker" carnival game to shoot a 1kg iron bar 19.4 meters into the air, 90 J would get it 9.2 meters into the air. A proper english/welsh war bow can hit up to about 200 J at 20 meters, and I cannot find a good test of how hard a mace or poleax can hit where they actually measured the impact energy.
Now, that was iron with 1.5-2.2% slag with virtually no carbon, but the steel used for later armors (e.g. 1450-1520AD) is a completely different animal. The steel used in German armor during this time had less than 0.5% slag in it (Williams, p.492) and a carbon content of around .5% or so, and would be tempered in a way that it would be quite springy in nature (Edge, p.233-256), so its dent and fracture resistance would be even better.
Sources:
Edge, D., & Williams, A. (2001). A study of the German 'Gothic'C’ 15TH-century equestrian armor (A21) in the Wallace Collection, London. Gladius, 233-256.
Williams, A. (2003). The knight and the blast furnace: A history of the metallurgy of armour in the Middle Ages & the early modern period. Leiden: Brill.
#134 to #39
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Actually chain over gambeson over thick wool clothing was pretty darn effective against blunt attacks.
Not as effective as plate, but added mobility gave you a chance to move to take glancing instead of full on blows.
Not as effective as plate, but added mobility gave you a chance to move to take glancing instead of full on blows.
#130 to #2
-
enlightednatzie ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Bruh, i've played a few hours of Skyrim in my lifetime and let me tell you what, deadric armos is the most superior. Pretty sure that is how the vikings where able to kill mammoths. By just looking at them so the mammoyh went: ''oh **** , that guys must be a badass, i'll better just die of a heart attack now instead.''
And thats the story how about i became the fresh prince of bel air.
And thats the story how about i became the fresh prince of bel air.
#26 to #2
-
limberlarry (01/05/2016) [-]
The armour will be fine, even if your internal organs are mangled
#270 to #2
-
masdercheef ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Probably meant the armor itself was impervious to such attacks. The user would still feel the effects of blunt force associated with a powerful impact - they wouldn't get stabbed or slashed but those ribs are gonna break.
#143 to #120
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Dunno why they are downvoting you, they appeared in 13th century as a response to hardened plate. Because of relatively small point of impact they offered more focused strike. They were also pretty limited in what they did, so they weren't all that popular, except to fight other plated knights on horseback.
Before that good ole mace did the trick.
Before that good ole mace did the trick.
#135 to #94
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] While arrows could easily penetrate chainmail, chain wasn't worn over skin or normal clothes. Underneath the mail, a soldier would wear padding. Both to prevent chaffing and as a security measure: In a lot of cases, an arrow would pierce the mail but lose it's force and get stuck in the padding before it could reach the flesh.
#13 to #2
-
elsenortamatoe (01/05/2016) [-] It is normally paired with leather and cloth padding under it. Its cheaper to put this on the front lines than plate. Plate has to be made to body, mail is a shirt.
#117 to #13
-
internetexplain (01/05/2016) [-] actually m8, it's a lot cheaper to create plate than chain mail.
Do you even remotely understand how much ******* effort goes into creating Chain-mail? by the time you get a Chain-shirt done, you have an entire Plate armour finished.
Sure, Chain is easier to equip, but it's not nearly as fast-produced, cost-efficient or even as light as Plate armour.
Plate became popular because it's better in literally every way, except Equip-time.
Like it takes a minute to put on that Chain-mail , but an hour to put on that Plate armour, with assistance from your courtiers and page.
Do you even remotely understand how much ******* effort goes into creating Chain-mail? by the time you get a Chain-shirt done, you have an entire Plate armour finished.
Sure, Chain is easier to equip, but it's not nearly as fast-produced, cost-efficient or even as light as Plate armour.
Plate became popular because it's better in literally every way, except Equip-time.
Like it takes a minute to put on that Chain-mail , but an hour to put on that Plate armour, with assistance from your courtiers and page.
#141 to #117
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] Plate is easier to make(for a good smith, a mediocre one will find chain much easier) but also much much more expensive than mail because it requires so much more metal.
Making chain is tedious but not hard or expensive. You can do it yourself if you've got the time.
Making chain is tedious but not hard or expensive. You can do it yourself if you've got the time.
#144 to #141
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Making good riveted mail is a lot more than just tedious, its a work of art.
And you sure as **** can't do it yourself.
You can make a mediocre butted mail at most.
And you sure as **** can't do it yourself.
You can make a mediocre butted mail at most.
#148 to #144
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] Hey hey I said nothing about riveting. If you've got the rings, pliers, some knowledge of technique, a lot of time and a little bit of practice you can make your own chainmail. Sure it won't be the best quality and riveted chain is much stronger, but I could definitely do it.
#151 to #148
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] I was just correcting what you said that making chainmail is not hard or expensive.
In middle ages really good riveted chainmail was very very expensive.
Low quality chainmail is actually pretty easy to make, especially if you go more for visual than use.
If you buy rings and practice a little you can do it while watching tv. I make stuff all year and give them as gifts during hollidays, saves me a fortune.
theringlord.com/cart/
In middle ages really good riveted chainmail was very very expensive.
Low quality chainmail is actually pretty easy to make, especially if you go more for visual than use.
If you buy rings and practice a little you can do it while watching tv. I make stuff all year and give them as gifts during hollidays, saves me a fortune.
theringlord.com/cart/
#164 to #117
-
montysmaultier (01/05/2016) [-] I once tryed to knit my own mail ... I feel you brah It took me sooo long for even a little pice of mail ( 20x20 cm) so I stopped at that point. I guess when youre used to it youre way faster but its still ... very slow.
#138 to #2
-
Spacemarine (01/05/2016) [-] naw m8, plate got ****** my bludgeoning, mace and hammers ****** knights, they were very visceral weapons and caused the splintering of bone and rupturing of all the blood vessels with a good hit. A single hit from a hilt of a sword to the helm caused great disorientation and nausea, almost a one hit ko.
#185 to #2
-
chaossniper (01/05/2016) [-] chainmail is contrary to what the post says unbelievably weak against arrows.
its main purpose is to protect for slashing attacks not piercing ones
its main purpose is to protect for slashing attacks not piercing ones
#287 to #185
-
emiyashirou ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] It means you could do basically whatever you want, the chainmail would be fine to loot off of the corpse of the guy you killed. It doesn't mean the person wearing it would be fine.
#271 to #2
-
baronvonhuckle (01/05/2016) [-]
War hammers weren't giant mallets. They were designed to break bones and tear muscle through plate armour.
#137 to #68
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Yeeeeah no.
You should watch little less anime. Swords that cut through steel don't exist.
Top heavy falchions were more of a problem because they'd break the bone.
Good ole two handed longsword and a well executed thrust (preferably with opponent on the floor) was still biggest problem for the chainmail.
You should watch little less anime. Swords that cut through steel don't exist.
Top heavy falchions were more of a problem because they'd break the bone.
Good ole two handed longsword and a well executed thrust (preferably with opponent on the floor) was still biggest problem for the chainmail.
#234 to #204
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] IT does. But it doesn't really cut them, (though it certainly has same effect as it did) it really just puts so much concentrated pressure on the links that they break.
Having your bones crushed and being impaled were the two major killers in middle ages, very few things got straight up cut off, at least for nobles.
Peasant militia got cut down like what.
Having your bones crushed and being impaled were the two major killers in middle ages, very few things got straight up cut off, at least for nobles.
Peasant militia got cut down like what.
#256 to #68
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
I retract my previous statement. Falchions were designed as a primarily a cutting weapon made of iron with a steel edge or made entirely of steel. They came in a variety of designs that ranged in effectiveness. There is simply no weapon that will slice through chainmail.
There are however weapons that were effective against chainmail and could break a few links. One weapon was the Ulfberht which was built to be flexible enough to not break as easily as other swords but strong enough to cleave your typical wooden shield and pop a few links in someone's chain mail. Or a well placed thrust from your typical spear could suffice as well.
But, as the general consensus is agreeing. A person in chain-mail will most likely have his legs/arms broken and receive a death blow by a misericorde than sliced by a sword.
There are however weapons that were effective against chainmail and could break a few links. One weapon was the Ulfberht which was built to be flexible enough to not break as easily as other swords but strong enough to cleave your typical wooden shield and pop a few links in someone's chain mail. Or a well placed thrust from your typical spear could suffice as well.
But, as the general consensus is agreeing. A person in chain-mail will most likely have his legs/arms broken and receive a death blow by a misericorde than sliced by a sword.
#168 to #68
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
Nope. That's actually ******** but I don't blame you for believing it. After all we don't use chainmail nowadays as often as I would like to see.
There are two scenarios when steel cuts steel rings/lines/wires, non rigid stuff: one is when they are put against rigid surface (for example if you decided to go superman clothing choices and put your chainmail OVER the plates) and other when tension during a hit is too great: so in reality all of the cases when the wearer is pinned to some hard surface, for example ground or a tree so you can deliver enough force without moving the target back. In all otther cases non rigid armor made from strong and individually rigid elements is the toughest **** around. If you having a hard time imagining it imagine something else: try cutting a hanging steel line/wire by swinging a sword around. Hard as hell. Now put this line on a block of wood and try again. Same goes for a chain. Chainmail has an obvious flaw which also makes it so tough: it can move around freely so you can make a mashed human salad without breaking his chainmail. So it effectively protets only against cuts and thrusts.
There are two scenarios when steel cuts steel rings/lines/wires, non rigid stuff: one is when they are put against rigid surface (for example if you decided to go superman clothing choices and put your chainmail OVER the plates) and other when tension during a hit is too great: so in reality all of the cases when the wearer is pinned to some hard surface, for example ground or a tree so you can deliver enough force without moving the target back. In all otther cases non rigid armor made from strong and individually rigid elements is the toughest **** around. If you having a hard time imagining it imagine something else: try cutting a hanging steel line/wire by swinging a sword around. Hard as hell. Now put this line on a block of wood and try again. Same goes for a chain. Chainmail has an obvious flaw which also makes it so tough: it can move around freely so you can make a mashed human salad without breaking his chainmail. So it effectively protets only against cuts and thrusts.
#249 to #2
-
glitchduck (01/05/2016) [-] to be fair it never said it made the wearer impervious to most attacks
#11 to #2
-
kylermannn ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] You're wrong because rune platebody has less crush defense than rune chain.
Check your facts before you post from now on
Check your facts before you post from now on
#56 to #50
-
ghostisaho (01/05/2016) [-] however, can jet fuel melt steel beams?
can you stump the trump?
what is love?
hi, how are you?
can you stump the trump?
what is love?
hi, how are you?
#75 to #15
-
sgtmajjohnson ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] What annoys me is that it mentions "exciting pitched battles" and "Game of Thrones" in the same sentence. There was literally one "exciting pitched battle" in the series, at Blackwater. Jaime's early campaigns in the Riverlands, The Whispering Wood, The Camps, The Mill, the siege of Dragonstone, Stannis breaking the Wildling army etc. were all short decisive battles that scattered the remainder or captured the leader of one belligerent army. This is except for the Siege of Dragonstone, which was a needlessly bloody but still small-scale assault on Dragonstone.
#212 to #150
-
sgtmajjohnson ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] That was still pretty small. It involved 1/10th of Robb's army and half of the much larger Lannister army.
#216 to #212
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] While that's true, real medieval armies were much smaller then those in Game of Thrones.
The stark army at the start of The War of The Five Kings numbered 30,000. The Lannister army was even bigger.
An average army from the hundred-year war numbered 10,000. And that war was the largest military conflict in Europe since the Classical era(not counting the crusades because those consisted of multiple armies from multiple countries)
The stark army at the start of The War of The Five Kings numbered 30,000. The Lannister army was even bigger.
An average army from the hundred-year war numbered 10,000. And that war was the largest military conflict in Europe since the Classical era(not counting the crusades because those consisted of multiple armies from multiple countries)
#219 to #216
-
sgtmajjohnson ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Robb had 20,000 for most of the war, and only started with 12,000 to the Lannister's 30,000. The Lannister's reached 60,000 at one point. The actual War of the Roses, which is the war which heavily inspired aSoIaF, apparently involved 18,000 troops on one side to 36,000 on the other at a point that I was reading about (I'm not sure how many there were throughout the war). Keep in mind that Westeros is far more populous than 15th century England, and the troop numbers don't seem that ridiculous in a world full of dragons and Others. Also, Westeros is a continent of Seven Kingdoms and the Riverlands, so they may as well be multiple countries considering half of them are in open rebellion.
#228 to #226
-
sgtmajjohnson ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] It wasn't really a pitched battle in the books at all, though. Rose Bolton's troops retreated in good order after successfully distracting Tywin, and massacring 2,000 as it's shown in the show isn't really a "pitched battle" either.
#229 to #228
-
toensix (01/05/2016) [-] It started that way but it didn't end like it, that's true.
But the Battle for the Blackwater also wasn't an army face to face with another army on a field. It had a very large naval component and most groundfighting was done in a much more chaotic fasion then a pitched battle would be
But the Battle for the Blackwater also wasn't an army face to face with another army on a field. It had a very large naval component and most groundfighting was done in a much more chaotic fasion then a pitched battle would be
#19 to #15
-
angrybacteria (01/05/2016) [-] It's the third time this has comp (with a few alterations) has been posted on this site. The top comment is always arguing about kinetic force trauma vs arrows. Tons of people always arguing about validity.
Some of the facts are good at least.
Some of the facts are good at least.
#40
-
vladhellsing ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Lies and deceit!
> Chainmail wasn't impervious to all attacks and especially not arrows. In fact there were special arrowheads developed (called 'bodkin' points) designed specifically to penetrate maille armour. Shields or hardened plate armour and the padded gambeson underneath were what saved soldier's lives from arrows, not chainmail.
> 95% of casualties weren't inflicted during the rout - an army would only rout when they already lost a good portion of their men and there was no hope of winning. It's very difficult to catch up to and kill a scattering army and usually not worth the trouble since your own forces would be scattered in the process.
> Well, the definition of "child" has changed dramatically over the centuries so I'm not sure what to make of this one. And neither does OP.
> High-born commanders... yeah, that's fairly accurate.
> While it's true that every archer (even the feared English longbowmen) were also foot soldiers trained in melee and utilised swords, falchions and such for personal defence, the bow was not an entirely useless defence weapon. Even the mighty longbow could be used to keep a handful of people at bay. And even when they were deployed en masse, archers would wait until the enemy was within a reasonable kill range and aim for the torso. The idea of archers simply lobbing arrows hundreds of yards at a very high trajectory is something seen in movies and nowhere else - especially in the days of armoured fighting where the only hopes one would have of penetrating armour with an arrow is by shooting them up close.
> Fire like a machine gun? No it ******* couldn't. First off, you don't "fire" a bow because there's no fire or gunpowder involved. Shouting "Ready! Aim! FIRE!" to medieval archers would cause them all to look around in panic wondering where the fire was. And secondly, the typical rate of fire of an English archer was something like 12 arrows per minute. Hardly machinegun-like now, is it?
> Well, their arms had to be. And it was quite easy to get that arm strength just by practising (it was actually made law for citizens to practise archery every Sunday so they'd be prepared for war). Being an archer didn't require special heroes of Herculean strength - it just required an average Joe who'd undergone the same training as everyone else.
> This one is somewhat true, there are accounts of "pincushion" Crusaders who were stuck with multiple arrows but could continue fighting. However all armour has gaps in it, and I don't think Crusaders would just march defiantly into a storm of arrows expecting not to get hit in the eye socket or something.
> A 'knight' was a rank of nobility, not a dude in armour. While it's true that the nobles who fought in battles were usually the only ones who could afford a full set of plate armour, many 'knights' never participated in any fighting. And any PTSD suffered by a knight on the battlefield was also suffered by the common foot soldier. It wasn't a condition exclusive to knights.
> Yeah, more or less. But notions of honour & glory were ways of encouraging soldiers (especially nobles) to fight.
> Not entirely true. Bows were still more 'effective' than even firearms of the American & French revolutions, but they weren't used because bullets were cheaper to produce, could be carried in greater quantities, were more effective against shields & armour and required less strength & training to use.
> Plate armour wasn't entirely bulletproof.
> Not sure.
> Not sure.
> True. Battles were actually pretty rare, sieges were the most common form of conflict. And even then they weren't exactly Helm's Deep. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IO-CooA4_Y
> It's pretty hard to 'hack' through mail, and even in the days of full plate armour many soldiers still carried arming swords & bucklers (such as archers).
> Back then they were all just called "swords". Terminology for different sword types is a modern invention.
> Chainmail wasn't impervious to all attacks and especially not arrows. In fact there were special arrowheads developed (called 'bodkin' points) designed specifically to penetrate maille armour. Shields or hardened plate armour and the padded gambeson underneath were what saved soldier's lives from arrows, not chainmail.
> 95% of casualties weren't inflicted during the rout - an army would only rout when they already lost a good portion of their men and there was no hope of winning. It's very difficult to catch up to and kill a scattering army and usually not worth the trouble since your own forces would be scattered in the process.
> Well, the definition of "child" has changed dramatically over the centuries so I'm not sure what to make of this one. And neither does OP.
> High-born commanders... yeah, that's fairly accurate.
> While it's true that every archer (even the feared English longbowmen) were also foot soldiers trained in melee and utilised swords, falchions and such for personal defence, the bow was not an entirely useless defence weapon. Even the mighty longbow could be used to keep a handful of people at bay. And even when they were deployed en masse, archers would wait until the enemy was within a reasonable kill range and aim for the torso. The idea of archers simply lobbing arrows hundreds of yards at a very high trajectory is something seen in movies and nowhere else - especially in the days of armoured fighting where the only hopes one would have of penetrating armour with an arrow is by shooting them up close.
> Fire like a machine gun? No it ******* couldn't. First off, you don't "fire" a bow because there's no fire or gunpowder involved. Shouting "Ready! Aim! FIRE!" to medieval archers would cause them all to look around in panic wondering where the fire was. And secondly, the typical rate of fire of an English archer was something like 12 arrows per minute. Hardly machinegun-like now, is it?
> Well, their arms had to be. And it was quite easy to get that arm strength just by practising (it was actually made law for citizens to practise archery every Sunday so they'd be prepared for war). Being an archer didn't require special heroes of Herculean strength - it just required an average Joe who'd undergone the same training as everyone else.
> This one is somewhat true, there are accounts of "pincushion" Crusaders who were stuck with multiple arrows but could continue fighting. However all armour has gaps in it, and I don't think Crusaders would just march defiantly into a storm of arrows expecting not to get hit in the eye socket or something.
> A 'knight' was a rank of nobility, not a dude in armour. While it's true that the nobles who fought in battles were usually the only ones who could afford a full set of plate armour, many 'knights' never participated in any fighting. And any PTSD suffered by a knight on the battlefield was also suffered by the common foot soldier. It wasn't a condition exclusive to knights.
> Yeah, more or less. But notions of honour & glory were ways of encouraging soldiers (especially nobles) to fight.
> Not entirely true. Bows were still more 'effective' than even firearms of the American & French revolutions, but they weren't used because bullets were cheaper to produce, could be carried in greater quantities, were more effective against shields & armour and required less strength & training to use.
> Plate armour wasn't entirely bulletproof.
> Not sure.
> Not sure.
> True. Battles were actually pretty rare, sieges were the most common form of conflict. And even then they weren't exactly Helm's Deep. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IO-CooA4_Y
> It's pretty hard to 'hack' through mail, and even in the days of full plate armour many soldiers still carried arming swords & bucklers (such as archers).
> Back then they were all just called "swords". Terminology for different sword types is a modern invention.
#317 to #305
-
alexanderh (01/05/2016) [-]
None of the arrows that guy fired would have done anything to a person wearing even a padded jack, and the bow he's using is MUCH weaker than anything used back then. Speed shooting a bow is a useless skill, and it wasn't done in medieval times.
#331 to #317
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
Yeah, he's a trick shooter who has plagued the internet with his claims that he has 'rediscovered lost techniques' (And somehow people who study his sources for a living didn't notice before him? Yeah, no.) And people will defend him to the end. His bow probably has a 30 lb draw weight, and he doesn't pull it back all the way. It's impressive, but not practical. His claims, on the other hand, aren't impressive. They're pathetic.
#349 to #331
-
angelusprimus (01/06/2016) [-] You are almost right. Its a 50lbs draw bow, it would do jack **** against an armored opponent.
Good for hunting, useless in combat unless you are sniping peasants.
Good for hunting, useless in combat unless you are sniping peasants.
#334 to #326
-
alexanderh (01/05/2016) [-]
Probably low quality butted mail, which wasn't used in medieval europe.
The armour is CLEARLY butted mail, which has much weaker links than riveted mail.
Plus, that's not penetrating. Yes, they're sticking out of the target, but they wouldn't pierce both the mail, the padded jack, and the skin of the target.
The armour is CLEARLY butted mail, which has much weaker links than riveted mail.
Plus, that's not penetrating. Yes, they're sticking out of the target, but they wouldn't pierce both the mail, the padded jack, and the skin of the target.
#307 to #40
-
mooghens (01/05/2016) [-] > 95% of casualties weren't inflicted during the rout - an army would only rout when they already lost a good portion of their men and there was no hope of winning.
There is no sure way to say exactly what would cause a rout in medieval battles, simply because a rout is exactly what it is: A disorganized unauthorized retreat enmasse by the army. It was under no circumstance a planned event by anyone who had any kind of responsibillity whom did their job. This guy does a good job of explaining it
There is no sure way to say exactly what would cause a rout in medieval battles, simply because a rout is exactly what it is: A disorganized unauthorized retreat enmasse by the army. It was under no circumstance a planned event by anyone who had any kind of responsibillity whom did their job. This guy does a good job of explaining it
#337 to #40
-
anon (01/06/2016) [-]
You're nitpicking and taking stuff literally for at least 40% of your post. Of course a longbow cannot literally fire as fast as a ******* machine gun, of course medieval archers didn't have "herculean strength", they didn't say chainmail was impervious to ALL attacks, and I'm sure it included the padded gambeson, of course PTSD wasn't EXCLUSIVE to knights. Jfc man, I'm all for fact checking, but there was so much crap in there that bugged me.
#338 to #125
-
garymotherfingoak ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] if you think the above comment is considered dickish, then i don't think this site is for you. leave while you still have your innocence.
#265 to #257
-
vladhellsing ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] By that definition anything can be fired like a machine gun.
#240 to #40
-
FirstSrMeme ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Most casualties did occur in the retreat, perhaps not 95% but a sizable majority. Calvary could easily pursue and destroy routed infantry. My sources for this are mostly ancient, but the principle is the same. Adrian Goldsworthy (military historian) mentions in almost every single one of his books that this is in fact the case. Most soldiers during a pitched battle weren't even fighting, let alone dying, but stood behind the front ranks as they engaged.
#298 to #40
-
eiaisqzbsesb (01/05/2016) [-] You're pretty spot on about these, except for the rout part. While it's true that there were more people killed in the actual fighting than the rout, most casualties of routs being attributed to routing soldiers tripping and being trampled to death by their buddies... I digress, while it's true that the actual fighting had more casualties than the routs, it is not true that routing only happens when an army has lost a good portion of their men and had no hope of winning. It was actualy quite common for winning armies to rout, or for routs to happen before even a lot of blood has been shed. Lindybeige makes a very fine point of this when speculating when and where a rout begins.
#156 to #40
-
angelusprimus (01/05/2016) [-] Just a few points.
> Even with bodkin arrows good thick riveted maile would slow arrows enough to catch them with gambeson. Even stop them outright (though links would get broken)
> Highborn commanders got bad reputation deservedly but lot after middle ages. It started with buying commissions in 17th and 18th century.
> Knight became a noble rank, and today is pretty much just a honor, but in early to late middle ages knight was a mounted heavy soldier who was paid for his service with being given enough land to support him. Knight's fee or fief.
> Normans didn't invent castles (that would be french), knights (that would be either Franks or Byzantines depending on if we agree cataphracts are knights or not) or finalized feudal system (french again, but Normans DID take it with them to england and finalized it there). They did conquer all those lands.
> You can't hack through the maile, (well you COULD but you'd have to keep hitting the exact same place to break the links and then keep hitting to get trhough gambeson and bone... you'r opponent is probably not going to cooperate, and you'll destroy your very expensive sword) to get through the armor you used thrust and your own weight. Swords were still used in 17th century, because they were pretty damned useful things.
You know a lot, I like you.
> Even with bodkin arrows good thick riveted maile would slow arrows enough to catch them with gambeson. Even stop them outright (though links would get broken)
> Highborn commanders got bad reputation deservedly but lot after middle ages. It started with buying commissions in 17th and 18th century.
> Knight became a noble rank, and today is pretty much just a honor, but in early to late middle ages knight was a mounted heavy soldier who was paid for his service with being given enough land to support him. Knight's fee or fief.
> Normans didn't invent castles (that would be french), knights (that would be either Franks or Byzantines depending on if we agree cataphracts are knights or not) or finalized feudal system (french again, but Normans DID take it with them to england and finalized it there). They did conquer all those lands.
> You can't hack through the maile, (well you COULD but you'd have to keep hitting the exact same place to break the links and then keep hitting to get trhough gambeson and bone... you'r opponent is probably not going to cooperate, and you'll destroy your very expensive sword) to get through the armor you used thrust and your own weight. Swords were still used in 17th century, because they were pretty damned useful things.
You know a lot, I like you.
#320 to #156
-
alexanderh (01/05/2016) [-]
Take a look at this: www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf
#350 to #320
-
angelusprimus (01/06/2016) [-] Example of patterns.
Difference in thickness and overlapping of links is huge.
Difference in thickness and overlapping of links is huge.
#348 to #320
-
angelusprimus (01/06/2016) [-] I've seen it.
Here's the problem with this test, even his high quality riveted maile was only 4 in 1, fairly thin pattern.
I'd like to see how it would go with a thick high quality 6 in 1 or even king's maile (8 in 1)
Second, no knight put chainmail over a simple coat. Maile went over a gambeson which is an armor in itself. So layered knight would have multiple levels of protection and a chance of an arrow penetrating to the skin (especially to killing hit) drops a lot.
Except for that, this is one of better tests I've seen.
Here's the problem with this test, even his high quality riveted maile was only 4 in 1, fairly thin pattern.
I'd like to see how it would go with a thick high quality 6 in 1 or even king's maile (8 in 1)
Second, no knight put chainmail over a simple coat. Maile went over a gambeson which is an armor in itself. So layered knight would have multiple levels of protection and a chance of an arrow penetrating to the skin (especially to killing hit) drops a lot.
Except for that, this is one of better tests I've seen.
#52 to #40
-
harasai ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] > an army would only rout when they already lost a good portion of their men and there was no hope of winning.
no anon seriously it's true , look at casualty figures for anything that wasn't a hard fought battle, at times the victorious force would lose less than a tenth of the defeated force
routing is a way bigger part of melee combat than most people realize, heck even in Napoleonic times cavalry fights would end with 1 side routing before they reached melee and getting cut don in the back
no anon seriously it's true , look at casualty figures for anything that wasn't a hard fought battle, at times the victorious force would lose less than a tenth of the defeated force
routing is a way bigger part of melee combat than most people realize, heck even in Napoleonic times cavalry fights would end with 1 side routing before they reached melee and getting cut don in the back
#69 to #40
-
sudminator (01/05/2016) [-] Well said, you seem to know your stuff. The post really rustled your jimmies eh
#122 to #40
-
hongkonglongdong (01/05/2016) [-]
Damn straight. I've always ******* hated OP's pic.
Normans were pretty damn powerful, and the Byzzies did have a lot of tactical research.
Normans were pretty damn powerful, and the Byzzies did have a lot of tactical research.
#183 to #160
-
holycrapimacupcake (01/05/2016) [-] I've tested this a while back. Chainmail, while pretty sturdy, can be utterly destroyed by an arrow, or even the correct blade.
#246
-
woodoo (01/05/2016) [-]
1: chainmail on its own was awful at protecting from arrows. It was the combination of a gambeson and chainmail that was effective.
2: no, a vast majority of "casualties of war" were inflicted from infections, disease, starvation, infected water, and STDs. The rout was the second most lethal time of war.
3: This is true, however, you were considered an adult at 16, and most peasants would "marry" at that time as well(marriage as we do it today were only for the rich elite, the regular peasants just got a priest to declare them married).
4: true.
5: False-ish. The British longbow was used over ranges were accuracy was useless, and you earned more on making it rain, as such British longbowmen were not trained to hit targets, but areas. If you shift your attention eastwards though, such things became less common. hell, if yo look at the war of the arrows, it was pretty much a war of sharpshooters.
6: false. The longbow could be "mastered" in a few weeks, if you put your mind to it. It did however require years of training before it could be used(training, not practice), because of the fatigue from rapidly drawing the up to 150 pound draw(135 was the average, 150 was a freakishly strong one).
7: This is true, they also tended to be fatter than the rest of the army, as they carried relatively little metal equipment, and were paid more than the rest of the army, allowing them to keep a bit of a gut. Its worthy of note though that they were muscular to handle the draw repeatedly, as you don't need to be massively powerful to do so once or twice.
8: false-ish, the Saracen arrows did pierce the mail, but the mail took enough force away from the arrows to make them stick in the underworn gambeson. Oh, and aside from belts and straps, the Crusaders avoided leather like the plague, as it gets really ******* hot.
9: False-ish, nearly all knights who saw combat. Most didn't, as knight was first and foremost a social class, and not all knights ever had to go to war(likewise, many many knights died before being able to go to war, as you could be born into the role, and child mortality rates were pretty high).
10: true, you could argue the muslim invasions of Europe were for the glory of Allah, but nah, they just wanted slaves and money.
11: False, guns had several uses over bows, for one, the bang they made tended to scare horses ******** , the smoke screen they laid down masked your own numbers, and made you harder targets for all forms of counterattacks, ammunition for it was easier to transport(a small charge of powder, a ball, and some paper took less space than an arrow), bows could be completely ruined by rain, while a gun that had been oiled well enough would have no problems, and guns could fire multiple projectiles as one(grapeshot), which, while not highly effective, still gave you a better chance to hit that tricky spot right underneath the armpit on that knight you wanted dead.
12: true-ish. As guns grew more prominent, armors grew thicker and heavier. Even then, the groin, under the armpits, and at the right angles, the neck, were weak spots were a bullet could force its way in.
13: Normans advanced castle building. Castles had been built before. Otherwise yeah.
14: ... well, i guess according to the Byzantine empire, they would be the brightest military minds.
15: actually, most of them were two forces meeting up, deciding who had the highest chance to win, and the losing side going home. Soldiers didn't want to die, and neither did their commanders.
16: false, it's designed for thrusting, hence the tapered edge. It was still used after plate came around, but knights stopped carrying them. Knights instead favored daggers(that is to say, grappling+daggers).
17: false-ish, the Scottish used a sword called a claidheamh-mòr(commonly known as a claymore), this weapon was introduced during the late middle ages, and is often considered a great-sword.
2: no, a vast majority of "casualties of war" were inflicted from infections, disease, starvation, infected water, and STDs. The rout was the second most lethal time of war.
3: This is true, however, you were considered an adult at 16, and most peasants would "marry" at that time as well(marriage as we do it today were only for the rich elite, the regular peasants just got a priest to declare them married).
4: true.
5: False-ish. The British longbow was used over ranges were accuracy was useless, and you earned more on making it rain, as such British longbowmen were not trained to hit targets, but areas. If you shift your attention eastwards though, such things became less common. hell, if yo look at the war of the arrows, it was pretty much a war of sharpshooters.
6: false. The longbow could be "mastered" in a few weeks, if you put your mind to it. It did however require years of training before it could be used(training, not practice), because of the fatigue from rapidly drawing the up to 150 pound draw(135 was the average, 150 was a freakishly strong one).
7: This is true, they also tended to be fatter than the rest of the army, as they carried relatively little metal equipment, and were paid more than the rest of the army, allowing them to keep a bit of a gut. Its worthy of note though that they were muscular to handle the draw repeatedly, as you don't need to be massively powerful to do so once or twice.
8: false-ish, the Saracen arrows did pierce the mail, but the mail took enough force away from the arrows to make them stick in the underworn gambeson. Oh, and aside from belts and straps, the Crusaders avoided leather like the plague, as it gets really ******* hot.
9: False-ish, nearly all knights who saw combat. Most didn't, as knight was first and foremost a social class, and not all knights ever had to go to war(likewise, many many knights died before being able to go to war, as you could be born into the role, and child mortality rates were pretty high).
10: true, you could argue the muslim invasions of Europe were for the glory of Allah, but nah, they just wanted slaves and money.
11: False, guns had several uses over bows, for one, the bang they made tended to scare horses ******** , the smoke screen they laid down masked your own numbers, and made you harder targets for all forms of counterattacks, ammunition for it was easier to transport(a small charge of powder, a ball, and some paper took less space than an arrow), bows could be completely ruined by rain, while a gun that had been oiled well enough would have no problems, and guns could fire multiple projectiles as one(grapeshot), which, while not highly effective, still gave you a better chance to hit that tricky spot right underneath the armpit on that knight you wanted dead.
12: true-ish. As guns grew more prominent, armors grew thicker and heavier. Even then, the groin, under the armpits, and at the right angles, the neck, were weak spots were a bullet could force its way in.
13: Normans advanced castle building. Castles had been built before. Otherwise yeah.
14: ... well, i guess according to the Byzantine empire, they would be the brightest military minds.
15: actually, most of them were two forces meeting up, deciding who had the highest chance to win, and the losing side going home. Soldiers didn't want to die, and neither did their commanders.
16: false, it's designed for thrusting, hence the tapered edge. It was still used after plate came around, but knights stopped carrying them. Knights instead favored daggers(that is to say, grappling+daggers).
17: false-ish, the Scottish used a sword called a claidheamh-mòr(commonly known as a claymore), this weapon was introduced during the late middle ages, and is often considered a great-sword.
#292 to #246
-
sytheris (01/05/2016) [-] 1. Yep, and the distance at which they were being hit.
2. While true, I believe he meant in battles, not campaigns or sieges.
3. Yep.
4. -
5. Pretty much. Professional English longbowmen still prided themselves on accuracy on an individual basis, just not during warfare.
6. The English also tended to be training their children from birth to at least be able to fire a smaller poundage bow if necessary, and this could be what is meant, but I agree it's not exactly accurate.
7. Yup.
8. Yup.
9. Yerp.
10. I guess. I try to avoid arguing the motivations for the Crusades, since it gets people in a tizzy.
11. He mentioned the sound, smoke is a good addition, but that was only if you had the correct kind of powder, and it could choke your men if the wind was bad. Correct on ammunition, but the issue of fire rate was a thing, this is why the rotating rank became popular when rifles became a mainstay. Your points more apply a while after guns had been worked on and improved, not when they were new to Europe.
12. Mhm.
13. I don't know that I'd call those rickety things 'castles' ;o
14. -
15. Mhm.
16. Ah, brutal metal-stabby combat. So beautiful.
17. Yeah, but who really counts the Scots anymore?
2. While true, I believe he meant in battles, not campaigns or sieges.
3. Yep.
4. -
5. Pretty much. Professional English longbowmen still prided themselves on accuracy on an individual basis, just not during warfare.
6. The English also tended to be training their children from birth to at least be able to fire a smaller poundage bow if necessary, and this could be what is meant, but I agree it's not exactly accurate.
7. Yup.
8. Yup.
9. Yerp.
10. I guess. I try to avoid arguing the motivations for the Crusades, since it gets people in a tizzy.
11. He mentioned the sound, smoke is a good addition, but that was only if you had the correct kind of powder, and it could choke your men if the wind was bad. Correct on ammunition, but the issue of fire rate was a thing, this is why the rotating rank became popular when rifles became a mainstay. Your points more apply a while after guns had been worked on and improved, not when they were new to Europe.
12. Mhm.
13. I don't know that I'd call those rickety things 'castles' ;o
14. -
15. Mhm.
16. Ah, brutal metal-stabby combat. So beautiful.
17. Yeah, but who really counts the Scots anymore?
#21
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
wars never stopped being about business transactions,,,,, they just went from being about medieval lords after gold food and land, to being about gold oil and diamonds and drugs and on larger scales of transactions
#312 to #5
-
gerfox (01/05/2016) [-]
Remember I read about something from the 3rd crusade. Some time during it the Crusaders were marching from one city to another - and on the way they got harassed by the Saracen skirmishers. Some knights had to walk in the end because the Saracens had killed their horses. Ultimately they grew too bold, and the knights suddenly ran out of the column and began the slaughter.
#82
-
regularorange (01/05/2016) [-] Muslim arrows cant pierce steel mail
The crusades were inside jobs
The crusades were inside jobs
#9
-
allamericandude (01/05/2016) [-] I find this hard to believe. Considering the bow was the only long range personal weapon at the time, people would surely get good at it. Not to mention people like the famous Mongol archers who could hit ridiculous targets while riding on horseback.
#17 to #9
-
Data (01/05/2016) [-] If a man is 20 feet away from you with a knife, and you have a holstered pistol, he could stab you just as you fired your first shot... mutually assured destruction. Which is why at short range, a ranged weapon is nearly useless if not prepared (ready to fire).
It's about speed, not about skill. It takes maybe two seconds to close a 20 foot gap (even less if you're sprinting), so unless if you KNEW you were about to be charged, it would be impossible to be ready to shoot down your attacker.
I'm not saying "ditch your gun, it's useless". Guns are a GREAT scare tactic to ward off anyone who wants to hurt you, a bow? Not so much. But if you're thinking about going somewhere dangerous, then maybe you should recalculate your route before deciding whether or not to go...
Anyway... a personal weapon during the time would be a broad dagger. Easy to draw, easy to conceal, cheap, reliable. Doesn't require much to get one from a blacksmith. Great against fleshy muggers with no real armor on. Handy for everyday things, too. Or an arming sword, which is basically a short sword. An effective weapon is always based on the situation. Five feet away from you? Melee weapon. A hundred yards? Ranged.
It's about speed, not about skill. It takes maybe two seconds to close a 20 foot gap (even less if you're sprinting), so unless if you KNEW you were about to be charged, it would be impossible to be ready to shoot down your attacker.
I'm not saying "ditch your gun, it's useless". Guns are a GREAT scare tactic to ward off anyone who wants to hurt you, a bow? Not so much. But if you're thinking about going somewhere dangerous, then maybe you should recalculate your route before deciding whether or not to go...
Anyway... a personal weapon during the time would be a broad dagger. Easy to draw, easy to conceal, cheap, reliable. Doesn't require much to get one from a blacksmith. Great against fleshy muggers with no real armor on. Handy for everyday things, too. Or an arming sword, which is basically a short sword. An effective weapon is always based on the situation. Five feet away from you? Melee weapon. A hundred yards? Ranged.
#67 to #37
-
trollmobile (01/05/2016) [-] that guy has been confirmed a complete fraud innumerable times.
those techniques are well-known to anyone that knows jack **** about archery.
they're never used, because you can't hit anything with them.
those clips in the video? you can bet your ass those are take 150 or so.
horribly inaccurate and does ******* against armor.
they were techniques used by early middle-ages archers, for very specific purposes.
never were they the standard.
this video is some infomercial level **** .
those techniques are well-known to anyone that knows jack **** about archery.
they're never used, because you can't hit anything with them.
those clips in the video? you can bet your ass those are take 150 or so.
horribly inaccurate and does ******* against armor.
they were techniques used by early middle-ages archers, for very specific purposes.
never were they the standard.
this video is some infomercial level **** .
#44 to #41
-
miasaki ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
I get what you are saying, and there are plenty of "professionals" (Idk what the hell makes you a pro in archery and I did not look into them at the time.) calling the guy out and saying that hes **** or out of form, its been known for years, yada, yada, yada. But they did show em getting through chain mail as well as the padded buffer (Granted they did not directly show us in this particular vid, but there are trick archers that do it with ease.) which were far more common and cheaper throughout history than a suit of plate and not as tightly woven/jointed as most assume.
You could go on saying why hes not a good example for one reason or another, but a object piercing someone was not something you shrugged off back in the day. The methods shown have been present for a while, trick archery exists and employs a lot of what was shown, they still have to pierce objects tougher and thicker than human skin.
Your statement is like saying a video of someone using a .22 is retarded because it does not have as much stopping power as a decently loaded .45 and is only good on people with very little to no protection. Everything has its use.
You could go on saying why hes not a good example for one reason or another, but a object piercing someone was not something you shrugged off back in the day. The methods shown have been present for a while, trick archery exists and employs a lot of what was shown, they still have to pierce objects tougher and thicker than human skin.
Your statement is like saying a video of someone using a .22 is retarded because it does not have as much stopping power as a decently loaded .45 and is only good on people with very little to no protection. Everything has its use.
#313 to #44
-
eiaisqzbsesb (01/05/2016) [-] I would be inclined to believe that that's knitted mail, but the video quality makes it hard to tell.
You see, an arrow piercing both a properly made Gambeson and Riveted mail is next to impossible, seeing as piercing the two require drasticly different arrowheads.
To get through the mail, you'd need a bodkin arrow, which was thin and pointed enough to sneak in between the rings of a mail armour. However, a gambeson's weave is actualy really resistant to being pierced through due to the uneven layering of cloth. If you wanna get an arrow through a Gambeson, you'll want to use a broad-headed arrow that cuts through the weave, but then that arrow won't be able to get through the chainmail. Due to this, there are several instances of european crusaders being described as pincushions or hedgehogs as they commonly wore a gambeson over chainmail.
You see, an arrow piercing both a properly made Gambeson and Riveted mail is next to impossible, seeing as piercing the two require drasticly different arrowheads.
To get through the mail, you'd need a bodkin arrow, which was thin and pointed enough to sneak in between the rings of a mail armour. However, a gambeson's weave is actualy really resistant to being pierced through due to the uneven layering of cloth. If you wanna get an arrow through a Gambeson, you'll want to use a broad-headed arrow that cuts through the weave, but then that arrow won't be able to get through the chainmail. Due to this, there are several instances of european crusaders being described as pincushions or hedgehogs as they commonly wore a gambeson over chainmail.
#321 to #313
-
alexanderh (01/05/2016) [-]
The gambeson was practically always worn UNDER the maille.
#252 to #115
-
miasaki ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
Chain mail was difficult to break(Significantly at least, kinda iffy with a bladed weapon. However, you could use a twisting motion to break/dislodge a link or two if your blade could handle it. No idea if this was employed as it would be risky in a actual fight, I've seen people recreate it and stuff.), hence why I said "through". Chain was good and sturdy, but to a thin arrow or blade it could either block completely, or redirect and hope it does not pierce/wiggle its way through.
They were explaining things from a variety of archers throughout history, I'm not an expert on types of mail, I could not tell ya which one he was using as a target. I'm simply stating that the methods he used are possible, there are some very skilled trick archers that perform quite well and have made similar moves/actions (Youtube recommendations after watching this guy and a couple of documentaries a while back). I'm sure some poor sap was stuck with the weaker/cheaper mail or had some links broken or dinged that they could not get repaired on the move or in the heat of battle.
They were explaining things from a variety of archers throughout history, I'm not an expert on types of mail, I could not tell ya which one he was using as a target. I'm simply stating that the methods he used are possible, there are some very skilled trick archers that perform quite well and have made similar moves/actions (Youtube recommendations after watching this guy and a couple of documentaries a while back). I'm sure some poor sap was stuck with the weaker/cheaper mail or had some links broken or dinged that they could not get repaired on the move or in the heat of battle.
#22 to #9
-
pipeworks (01/05/2016) [-] Part of it is that archers didn't have to aim. They just pointing in the general direction of the enemy force, and unleashed hell as quickly as they can. And then they buggered off if the enemy got too close.
A single archer is ******* worthless. Even if they can fire at a rate of ten arrows a minute, which is ludicrous speed for back then, that's negligible against an army of thousands.
That's part of the reason why English longbowmen were terrifying on the battlefield. Their bows had a higher draw-strength, so they shot about half again as far as any other bows, at the same rate of fire as most expert archers. As the enemy approached they could start firing sooner, and had a much larger window of opportunity to rain deadly death on the enemy troops before they got too close.
A single archer is ******* worthless. Even if they can fire at a rate of ten arrows a minute, which is ludicrous speed for back then, that's negligible against an army of thousands.
That's part of the reason why English longbowmen were terrifying on the battlefield. Their bows had a higher draw-strength, so they shot about half again as far as any other bows, at the same rate of fire as most expert archers. As the enemy approached they could start firing sooner, and had a much larger window of opportunity to rain deadly death on the enemy troops before they got too close.
#46 to #22
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
I read somewhere( not saying it isn't exaggerated) that turkic kids of nobility would train with bow and arrow till they could shoot an apple from a branch at considerable distance. Has it anything to do with the composite bow and being easier to handle as the longbow? and secondly how do you explain archery as in the competition and hunting?
#36 to #22
-
feedtehtrollz (01/05/2016) [-] Ten arrows a minute during a battle is mediocre, they could fire much faster to blanket the enemy army with arrows, I will agree that a single archer with a bow can be useless in battle, arrows didn't penetrate armour as frequently as people assume from playing games and the wounds caused my arrows were actually very minor considering their size. Broad head arrows did deal more internal damage than conventional and bodkin tipped arrows but had an even smaller chance if at all of piercing armour.
#323 to #36
-
alexanderh (01/05/2016) [-]
Ten arrows per person per minute is a LOT, if we're talking medieval english longbows. And they could actually penetrate the weaker parts of of plate armour, like the sides of helmets. If you want more info, look up schola gladiatoria on youtube, he did some videos with a guy from a british museum, showing off some historical helmets from the battle of agincourt than had been pierced by arrows.
#42 to #23
-
zeegermanknight (01/05/2016) [-] Crossbows were used all the time in medieval warfare in Europe and China in a variety of situations, most crossbows used on battle fields had a light draw weight to them as their were used to mow down lighter armored infantry and could be reloaded rather quickly heavier crossbows that would require a windlass or a cranequin (which came after the windlass and replaced it in the late medieval period) would take longer to reload but even then you can easily stop reloading and fight off a guy trying to attack you as long as you can stay vigilant.
#10 to #9
-
borderlineparanoid ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] they mean that you wouldn't be able to do what legolas does, firing shots quickly at close targets. you'd be surrounded and killed in seconds. no matter how good you were.
#48 to #9
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
medieval archers didn't fire pantsy ass trick shot bows , they would take a lot of force to fire , and to fire fast you would need to sacrifice accuracy
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c
these guys don't hit all their shots at 25 meter on a non moving target with no preassure to preform , and i seriously doubt they are incompetent archers
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c
these guys don't hit all their shots at 25 meter on a non moving target with no preassure to preform , and i seriously doubt they are incompetent archers
#179
-
thesunpraiser (01/05/2016) [-] I've studied Middle Ages/Renaissance, most of these are fake. Check your facts before you post.
#47
-
talosknight ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] I own both chainmail and a bow and my friend will assure you, they are not impervious to arrows.
#189 to #102
-
talosknight ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] No, we considered it before we realized that would be retarded.
#51 to #47
-
machiavellianhumor ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] clearly you weren't wearing it while being shot. please put on the chainmil and try again
#74 to #47
-
solacethedm (01/05/2016) [-] maybe OP was refering to a different type of chainmail?
no, I didn't feel obligated to reply because of our avatars, why would you think that?
no, I didn't feel obligated to reply because of our avatars, why would you think that?
#187 to #74
-
talosknight ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
Doubtful Edgeworth. It's European 8 in 1, which of the most common types of chainmail, would be the most likely to stop an arrow. Yet when we propped it up on a friends target manaquin, it was discovered even field tips would pierce far enough to cause life threatening injuries.
