Can Arrows Penetrate Medieval Armor?
Can Arrows Penetrate Medieval Armor?
I find this question fascinating. As both a gamer and a fantasy writer, I like to get as close to reality as possible, if only to make the fantastic elements of my games and stories that much more fantastic and cool. So a while back, I spent several days researching this question, and I collected a fair number of interesting resources.
To my dismay, I discovered that there are lots of factors to consider when examining this question.
- The specs of the bow and arrow. Draw weight, arrow type, arrowhead type (material, shape). Modern compound bows can have much higher draw weights than historical bows. Some arrowheads were designed to puncture armor, while others were designed to maximize damage to the flesh but had poor armor penetration.
- The specs of the armor. Assuming plate armor: thickness, carbon levels (iron, steel, and quality of the steel), tempering and hardening, layers (mail, textile). Historical armor had a huge level of variation in type and quality, making it difficult to use actual historical pieces to make generalizations. From what I’ve read, this isn’t something that we’ll get a consensus on anytime soon—yet it’s obviously a huge factor.
- The circumstances of the strike. Angle, distance. Most tests assume direct, perpendicular strikes. Obviously, hitting at an angle will drastically decrease the penetration. Some strikes could glance off and hit another combatant. Distance is a huge factor. Tests seem to indicate that the penetration range is around 20 to 30 yards. Beyond that, effectiveness decreases drastically.
- How deep is the penetration? Most tests seem to indicate that the deepest penetration was about an inch, maybe two. It usually takes at least two to three inches of penetration to damage any vital organs.
- Economic and social factors. Cost and availability of armor, skill of the archer, horses, mass archery. Some armors that defend very well against arrows were prohibitively expensive. Skilled archers might be able to make up for many of the problems mentioned so far. In certain historical battles, the tactics of mass archery made a huge difference.
This isn’t a simple question. It’s riddled with complicated factors that are all interrelated. I never came to a definite conclusion myself, except that in general, it seems like arrows seldom (if ever) would have penetrated plate armor. The circumstances would have needed to be just right for that to happen.
I’ve collected most of the best resources I found below, if you’re interested in digging into this question on your own. This is the only collection like this that I’ve seen. If you found it useful, or if you find anything that’s missing, please leave a comment.
Articles and Discussions
English Longbow Testing (PDF), an article by Matheus Bane documenting some testing he did with various types of arrowheads and armors. This test uses a clay slab behind the armor to show how deeply the arrows would have penetrated human flesh. Only the needle point bodkin penetrated plate armor deeply enough to cause a potentially fatal wound.
Testing reconstructed medieval crossbows, by Andreas Bichler. The existing medieval crossbows we have are all in unshootable condition and are sequestered in museums. This is an attempt to recreate medieval crossbows and test their performance on different types of armor.
A fascinating discussion on MyArmoury.com on the ability of the English longbow to penetrate plate armor. The folks on MyArmoury are generally smart and very well read on these kinds of subjects. It’s a long, involved discussion. Casual browsers need not apply.
This blog post from medieval recreator Will McLean was the source of one of the other links I’ve given here, and provides an interesting critique of some experimental bow shooting.
Another blog post from Will McLean discussing metallurgical findings from historical armor.
Videos
Longbow versus breastplate.
Weapons That Made Britain. In this episode, historian Mike Loades discusses the English longbow. This link leads to a forum where the entire show can be seen via a series of linked YouTube videos.
The following two videos document a test conducted by Mike Loades using a modern arrow-shooting machine to replicate ancient weapons. Although the arrow penetrates the breastplate, it doesn’t go deeply enough to cause injury.
English warbow versus tempered sheet metal. These three videos are attempts by various groups of people to test the penetration of the English warbow of various kinds of sheet metal and breastplates. Although these tests are interesting to watch, they aren’t rigorous enough to really draw conclusions from. Many of the arrows break through the plate, but there’s no way to tell how deeply and whether the strikes would have caused significant injury.
Crossbow against steel breastplate. This video shows some guys shooting a 1000 pound crossbow using various heads on the quarrels. None of them pierce so far that the quarrel sticks into the breastplate. It looks like a few of them might have pierced up to a quarter inch or so. With some linen padding inside, I doubt the wearer would be significantly injured—although the so-called armor breaker and the heavy quarrel look to pack quite the punch. Probably the biggest flaw in this test is that the breastplate is just propped up on a board. It gets knocked around a lot—not exactly the same as someone wearing it.
I remember you and I having this conversation on the way to Kent’s recently. One thing we mentioned was Chain Armor, which was probably what the majority of a large army would have worn… I would assume. it SEEMS that mostly only the mounted wore Plate. I have no proof of this, merely a guess. And I’m sure in small “special ops.” groups, if you will, they probably had plate. You do have one picture of a mail shirt pierced that and it looks a good few inches in, which would cause semi to severe injury. Also, there is one thing not mentioned which would be hard to test, however. Imagine the raw courage it would take to properly continue your advance or whatever with arrows slamming into every second! You’re going to feel some blunt force and visually see the arrow coming (or not which could be worse). I can’t imagine charging through a hail of arrows! That could easily ruin a charge.
My brother has told me that in the police academy they teach to take two shots at the body, and if nothing happens, start taking head shots because the criminal is probably wearing body armor.
Medieval archers could see their targets armor, and I don’t think they spent a lot of time trying to pierce it. After all, until the late middle ages, plate armor was limited to helmets and breast plates, and a man in fifty or more pounds of armor on his knees or his back with an arrow or two in his thigh or groin is about as threatening as one who is dead.
I also think Jeremy has a great point with the psychological damage fighting archers must have had. Armor technology was always just behind the weapon curve; the invincible plate armor from the sixteenth century was just for show: it didn’t stand a chance against the quickly developing firearms of the era. In the middle of the middle ages, those soldiers had to be painfully aware of all of the weak points in their armor against a foe that could launch a half a dozen or more arrows at them in effective range, then quickly outdistance them and launch a dozen more while they’ve never gotten close enough to take a single chop at the archer. For a knight on horse back, it would be a question of will the horse stay up long enough to close the distance.
There is a reason the French cut the index and middle fingers from captured archers before they released them.
R.
Hey, sorry it took me so long to reply.
Good points from both of you! Knowing the difficulty in penetrating armor with arrows, I’m sure archers would have focused on other tactical options, like aiming for horses or unarmored spots. Without a set of full plate armor, charging someone with a bow would have been as foolhardy as charging someone with a gun. Body armor won’t help you if they shoot you in the leg or face.
An archer friend was telling me that Russian yew staves were imported to make English Longbows as they had more strength than English yew, he reckoned a bow that pulled 180lbs would send an armour piercing arrow clean through the plate of the time. As well as looking at the armour look at the variety and quantity of armour piercing arrows in the museums these were made in a time of war when there was no time or expense for fancy ideas that didn’t work on the field.
Then there is this… I think you’ll enjoy the comparison with Legolas!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9504225/the_worlds_fastest_archer/?noFBRedirect=1#_=_
Lalitaraja, I would be very surprised to find that Russian yew was being imported into England during the Middle Ages. Does your archer friend have any references to back that up?
As for the armor piercing arrowheads, I believe all the videos and tests I referenced in my post were using them (specifically the bodkin). You can see how that worked out. I don’t think any of the arrows penetrated more than an inch or so.
You should browse around my site and check out my other archer posts. I have the one you linked to and many others showing some pretty awesome techniques for fast firing.