There have been several modern attempts to test replica medieval weapons to better understand how these weapons would have worked in the past. While no single study is perfect, each of them provides a useful insight into how lethal these weapons were. The greatest problem from the perspective of this thesis is that nearly every one of these tests was an attempt to study the impact of arrows on armoured targets and quite often only a small amount of data was gathered on the performance of the weapons themselves. It would be of much greater interest to this study if the velocity and mass of the arrows and bolts fired for these tests had been recorded, and the efficiency and power of the weapons calculated. Several of these studies will be covered below, including how they were conducted, what information they provided about medieval ranged warfare, and possible problems with their methodology or conclusions.
S.V. Grancsay performed what is probably the first modern test of medieval archery versus medieval armour. His experiment was published as an article in True, A
139 Thom Richardson, “Ballistic testing of historical weapons”, Royal Armouris Yearbook 3 (1998). p. 51.
Dirk Breiding, A Deadly Art European Crossbows, 1250-1850 (New York, 2014). pp. 118-22.
140 W.F. Paterson, A Guide to the Crossbow, pp. 30-32.
53
Man's Magazine. W.F. Paterson wrote a brief account of Grancsay's experiment which contained the following details. Grancsay's test used a longbow made of osage orange wood and backed with rawhide, and a cranequin-spanned crossbow of unspecified materials. The longbow drew 68 lbs (31 kg) at an unspecified distance, while the
crossbow drew 740 lbs (336 kg) at an unspecified distance. The test found that these two weapons fired at comparable speeds, with the longbow arrow travelling at 40.37 metres per second (90 mph) and the crossbow bolt travelling at 42.28 metres per second (95 mph). The one problem with this experiment is that the crossbow bolt in question was half of the weight of the arrow, despite the much greater power of the crossbow. It is unlikely that a bolt for a crossbow that drew 740 lbs would be as light as the one used by Grancsay. While a heavier bolt would travel slightly slower than the one used by
Grancsay, its momentum on impact would have been much greater.142
The next significant test of the longbow versus a medieval plate armour substitute, which became the reference for many of the studies that followed, was conducted by Peter Jones in 1984. His tests used a yew longbow with a draw weight of 30 kg, or approximately 66 lbs, at a distance not specified in the article but assumed to be somewhere in the region of 28 to 30 in. An associate of his fired several different kinds of arrows at iron plates, ranging from 1 mm in thickness to 3 mm in thickness, and measured the ability of the arrows to penetrate the iron. He found that the 1 mm plates were consistently penetrated by the arrows, while the 2 mm plates were more resistant, and the 3 mm plates were impenetrable. The 2 mm plates were sometimes penetrated by the arrows, and Jones concluded that the degree of penetration would have been
insufficient to deliver a fatal blow, but likely would have been disabling. In the case of the 1 mm plates, the shot would almost certainly have killed the target, assuming it hit in a vital area. In Jones' article, he put aside only a short paragraph to discuss the tests, so there are few details to work from. Much of the article was concerned with the history of armour and arrows, as well as some discussion of modern projectiles. The armour stand- in was hardly perfect, since it was just a sheet of iron, not steel, and held in place by a clamp with no support along the back. Plate armour would be worn over thick cloth on a person, so it could compress when hit and absorb some of the power of the arrow, which would reduce how much penetration could be achieved. This was hardly a sophisticated representation of plate armour, but Jones also did not seem to intend for it to be one. Jones did his tests before the analysis of the Mary Rose bows indicated that the longbow
54 in the Later Middle Ages had a draw weight closer to one hundred pounds (45 kg) draw weight at 30 in (76 cm). The increased power of these bows over those he used means his results cannot be applied to Mary Rose type bows. Jones also made no attempt to
measure the raw power of the bows he used, so no conclusions could be drawn about the force of the arrow independently.143
C.A. Bergman, E. McEwen, and R. Miller did a comparison of the velocities of arrows fired from several types of bows, as well as other projectiles in 1985. The primary reason for their study was to compare the prehistoric spear-thrower, also known as the
atlatl, with early bows, the technology often assumed to have replaced the spear-thrower in most cultures.144 They tested several different types of bows, all modern replicas,
including a Tartar composite bow from Crimea, an Apache warbow, a Souix self bow, an African self bow, and a medieval yew longbow. They also included a modern crossbow for comparison. They carried out the tests at the Royal Ordnance Small Arms Division in Enfield, which had sophisticated machinery to accurately measure the speed of the projectiles.145 From their conclusions, it seems they had a system for calculating the
impact of the projectiles as well, but no actual impact data were included in the published article. Since the data from the longbow are the only data relevant to this thesis, that is what this paragraph will focus on. The longbow they used was made from two separate pieces of yew, glued together at the grip section to form an overall bow of 1930 mm (76 in) in length with a draw weight of 80 lbs. (36.2 kg) at 32 in (81.3 cm). The authors fired five different types of arrow from the longbow. Each arrow type was fired several times, but the article only included the maximum speed achieved by each arrow type.146 Unfortunately, the arrow descriptions are vague about their design, but the
article does say they were all made of birch wood and fletched radially with three feathers. The slowest arrow was the small broadhead, which weighed 65 g and travelled at a speed of 37 metres per second (83 mph). The fastest arrow was the field arrow, which weighed 50 g and travelled at a speed of 53 metres per second (119 mph). The heaviest arrow fired was the large broadhead, which weighed 90 g and travelled at a speed of 43 metres per second (96 mph). As a point of comparison, the modern crossbow had a draw weight of 40.8 kg (90 lbs) and fired a bolt that only weighed 13 g at a speed
143 Peter Jones, “A short history of the attack of armour”, Metallurgist and Materials Technologist, 16:5
(1984). p. 247-8.
144 C.A. Bergman, E. McEwen and R. Miller, “Experimental Archery: Projectile Velocities and
Comparison of Bow Performances”, Antiquity 62:237 (1988). pp. 658-60.
145 Ibid. pp. 666-9. 146 Ibid. pp. 662-5
55 of 62 metres per second (139 mph).147 It is hard to draw any solid conclusions from these
data, especially given the limited information on the arrows. The article says that a bodkin arrow - the most common type of military arrowhead from the Middle Ages - was fired as part of the testing, but the table that contains all of the data makes no mention of it. Instead there are enigmatic arrow descriptions like 'field arrow', 'forked arrowhead', and 'spearhead with flutes.'148 In the end, the study does provide data on the speed of
arrows fired from a replica medieval longbow that could prove a useful point of
comparison with other studies. Unfortunately, due to the vagueness of the data table, the experiment is hard to interpret so this study is limited in the benefits it provides to historians’ understanding of medieval warfare.
Peter Jones conducted another set of tests in 1992, using a yew bow that drew 70 lbs (32 kg) at 28 in (81.3 cm). This time, he fired several different types of arrows at iron sheets of differing thickness, which were held at one of three different angles. This test was much more thorough than his previous experiment, and included extensive
discussion of thickness and metal quality of several surviving pieces of medieval armour, including a discussion of their Vickers hardness ratings. Vickers hardness rating is a scale used to determine the hardness of a metal by measuring how much it deforms when under pressure.149 The arrows he fired were all of approximately the same weight but had
different types of arrow head attached to them. Jones measured the penetration each arrow achieved, as well as the frequency with which the arrows broke on impact. The arrows were fired from ten metres away from the target. His overall conclusion was that when an arrow hit 1 mm thick armour straight on, or at an angle of no more than twenty degrees, significant penetration occurred. At wider angles, penetration almost never happened. Some minor penetration occurred against 2 mm plates when they were hit straight on, but not enough to probably even penetrate the layer of clothing worn
underneath plate armour. However, he pointed out that armour this thin was often only in limb sections and other areas where a penetrating hit would not be lethal.150 He
concluded that few arrows would have resulted in fatal penetrations against a knight in full plate armour. However, against other types of armour, arrows were more likely to achieve fatal penetrations. His overall conclusion was that at the start of the Hundred
147 Ibid. p. 663 148 Ibid. pp. 662-3
149 Peter Jones, “Metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armour”, Materials
Characterization 29 (1992). pp. 111-5.
56 Years War (1337-1453), longbows would have been quite dangerous, but as armour grew more advanced, the ability of the longbow to deliver lethal blows would have decreased substantially. The longbow used in these experiments was weaker than most of the bows found on the Mary Rose. Depending on how the Mary Rose bows’ draw weights are determined, the bow Jones used could be considered equivalent to some of the weaker bows found on the ship.151 The close range of the archer to the targets represented fairly
optimal conditions for armour penetration. Once again, Jones was primarily concerned with testing against armour rather than the raw power of the longbow on its own, so the data cannot be applied to the longbow’s performance in other situations. Still, his consideration of angle of impact was significant. It can be easy to forget that in the heat of battle, an arrow would rarely hit its target head on, and the angle of impact had a significant impact on the effectiveness of the weapon.152
The Defense Academy Warbow Trials, in 2005, were an attempt to update Peter Jones' study to reflect more recent discoveries about the medieval longbow. They made two primary changes to the type of bow used in Jones' test: they increased the draw weight to 140 lbs (64 kg) at 32 in (812 mm), and they changed the type of bow to a compass bow instead the target type bow that Jones had used. The bow used was made of yew, with a backing of hickory to replace the sapwood. This was done for cost reasons, due to the expense of the high quality of yew required to make a yew self
bow.153 They also changed the method of mounting the target plate, to better replicate the
effects of armour being worn on the body. They disagreed with Jones' assessment of the thickness of medieval armour, noting that most of Jones' examples were helmets and not breastplates. Helmets, they argued were often thicker than breastplates, which would have skewed Jones' results. Lastly, they measured the kinetic energy of the arrows as they impacted the plate.154 They tested against three thicknesses of metal: 1.15 mm, 2
mm, and 3 mm. The 1.15 mm was penetrated by all types of arrowhead, which suggested that armour of that thickness would have been little use against the longbow. However, armour this thin was usually only covering non-vital areas, like thighs and upper arms, so a puncture was unlikely to result in a fatal wound. Their report on the 2 mm thick armour was confusingly written but it seems that, depending on angle, the shorter bodkin arrow
151 Clive Bartlett, Chris Boyton, Steve Jackson, Adam Jackson, Douglas McElvogue, Alexzandra Hildred
and Keith Watson, “The Longbow Assemblage”, pp. 2:616-7.
152 Ibid. pp. 115-7.
153 Paul Bourke and David Whetham, “A report of the Defense Academy warbow trials Part I Summer
2005”, pp. 58-60
57 and the lozenge arrow head achieved penetration but the needle bodkin did not. The best penetration achieved against the 3 mm thick sheet was only partial, even that was not consistently achieved with any arrow. The needle bodkin head, which had proved to be the most effective arrow in Jones' 1992 study, was found to be remarkably ineffective in this study.155 The reason for this sudden change appeared to be due to the increase in the
power of the bow. When the needle bodkin did not hit the plate perfectly perpendicular to it, the tip bent – and often broke – rather than penetrating the plate. It seemed that the increased force on the arrow was too much for the arrowhead to take.156
The Warbow Trials were not without their detractors, and Kelly DeVries wrote a rather extensive rebuttal to them. The authors of the study made very broad claims about the effectiveness of longbows based on their study, and DeVries pointed out that many of these claims have little basis in either the study or other contemporary evidence. As an example, the authors at one stage suggest that even wounding arrow strikes would likely have proven fatal in the long run, as they would have disabled the soldier in question and he later would have died of his wounds. As a rebuttal, DeVries pointed out that evidence from the excavation at Towton showed that many medieval soldiers suffered serious wounds and recovered from them.157 In general, DeVries noted, the authors put a lot of
emphasis on the blunt force trauma that the arrow would have when it hit its target, without giving enough consideration to the multiple layers of clothing that would have been worn beneath a piece of armour. While examining the actual force an arrow put out is very important, and a factor often neglected in tests, it is important not to overstate the effect this had. DeVries’ criticism also showed that the authors were overly reliant on the works of Robert Hardy and Ralph Payne-Gallwey, with little consideration for authors who might have had different opinions. The fact that they used Mark Stretton as their test archer reinforces this idea, since he had previously collaborated with Hardy on medieval longbow draw weights. This does seem to indicate that the authors had a predisposition towards the argument that the English longbow drew at least 140 lbs (64 kg) at 30 in (76 cm). DeVries disputed the weight of the longbow used in the test, since he did not accept the idea that the Mary Rose longbows had draw weights this high, although he did not make clear if he objected to all aspects of that assessment, just one of either the weight or
155 Peter Jones, “Metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armour”, pp. 115-7. 156 Ibid. pp. 65-8.
157 Kelly DeVries, David Whetham and Paul Bourke, “Comments”, Arms and Armour 4:1 (2007). p. 80
Jennifer Coughlan and Malin Holst, “Health Status” in Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461 ed. Veronica Fiorato, Anthea Boylston, and Christopher Knüsel, 2nd Ed. (2000, Oxford, 2007). pp. 71-5.
58 the draw distance.158 DeVries has in the past argued against the high power assigned to
the longbow by Hardy. DeVries has often been critical of the conclusion that the longbow was a consistently deadly weapon –which is an idea the authors of this study supported with their conclusions – so it is not surprising that he rejected the idea that the average longbow in the Middle Ages was as powerful as the one used in the tests.159
DeVries therefore could hardly be called neutral on this subject, so to some extent his criticism could be seen as simply disagreement. However, in many cases DeVries simply pointed out that the authors of the study used the phrase 'contemporary opinion', or similar expressions, without providing proper context, or justification, for what they thought the ‘contemporary opinion’ was. In the authors’ response to DeVries, it was made pretty clear that they viewed 'contemporary opinion' as the opinions of Robert Hardy and individuals who agree with him, such as Mark Stretton.160 Their reliance on
Payne-Gallwey was less problematic, but it was still not ideal. Payne-Gallwey could hardly be called a controversial author, but his seminal work was first published at the turn of the twentieth century, and while no book since then has completely replaced it, his work should still be referenced with caution. While some of the conclusions of the test were applied too broadly to the scope of history, the actual tests themselves were well conducted and was a valuable contribution to historians' understanding of the longbow. DeVries did dispute the power of the bow used, but beyond that, his major critique of the test was that he felt the authors did not do enough to update Jones' methodology. Since the authors stuck so closely to Jones' original study, most criticisms of how he conducted his study could just as easily be levelled at this one, and DeVries believed that they should have changed more aspects of the original Jones study than they did.161
In 1998, the Royal Armouries published a series of experiments led by Thom Richardson. These tests involved a wide range of weapons from the Middle Ages and earlier. These included: a replica arqeubus from The Mary Rose; a medieval handgun; three longbows; two crossbows; six types of slings; a spear thrower; and spear thrown by manpower alone. Given the scope of this thesis, only the tests of the longbows and crossbows will be considered in detail here. The weapons were fired an unspecified