This frightens and angers the frenchcuck

I think it would have been more of a bodkin. Broadheads are great for hunting but not much good against linen/steel. Either way, I don't think the arrowhead they used in the test was accurate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

They used both. Broadheads were made of hardened steel and were used at short range. Bodkins were made of soft steel and were used at longer range. Neither was very effective against armor- that was the point of wearing armor.

>We marcht straight up to them, and so soon as they were come up within arrow shot, our Harquebuzeers gave their volley all at once, and then clapt their hands to their swords, as I had commanded, and we ran on to come to blows; but so soon as we came within two or three pikes length, they turn’d their backs with as great facility as any Nation that ever I saw, and we pursued them as far as the River, close by the Town, and there were four or five of our Soldiers who followed them to the other side. I then made a halt at the ruins of the little houses, where I rally’d my people to∣gether again, some of whom were left by the way behind, who were not able to run so fast as the rest.

>We must either conclude that the English of former times were more valiant then those of this present age, or that we are better men than our forefathers. I know not which of the two it is. In good earnest, said Monsieur de Tais, these people retreat in very great haste. I shall never again have so good an opinion of the English, as I have had heretofore. No Sir, said I, you must know that the English who antiently us’d to beat the French, were half Gascons, for they married into Gascony, and so bred good Soldiers: but now that race is worn out, and they are no more the same men they were.

>From that time forwards our people had no more the same opinion, nor the same fear of the English, that before.

I know people hate lindy, but this is a good video nonetheless.
youtu.be/Ej3qjUzUzQg

>It's a "Skirmishers are shit and don't win wars" thread

>Before the 100 Year War
>British

Goddamn, so many brainlets in this thread claiming utter shite with their out of context clips.

>shoots pig with broadhead
>shoots gambeson with a TARGET POINT
What did he mean by this?
First of all, a gambeson is very good protection against the punctures and cuttings of arrows. Useless point really, since if that's all you're wearing then you're going to die from impact or at the very least break every bone in the contact area and bleed internally on the ground. Arrows are not shivs lads, they don't kill by gutting you or draining blood.
Anyway, that shaft would be buried 18 inches deep if it had a long-point type 10 bodkin, or a needle bodkin, really anything that's intended to penetrate, unlike a Victorian era target point.

And of course no arrow is going to penetrate hardened solid steel plate, with a nearly spherical profile no less.
However, again, any knight that comes riding into an arrow square into his chest is going to get his ribs and spine BTFO and probably get dismounted.

These aren't mudslime twig arrows where people can walk through them like rain.
No one wants to be on the sharp end of the English longbow arrow, only way to avoid it other than missing it is a good shield probably.

I really get triggered when imbeciles take out their 90# laminates and shoot target heads at random pieces of garbage or mastercrafted armor and claim you can absorb arrows like a videogame character.

frenchies don't even bother replying to me

>they don't kill by gutting you or draining blood.
what did he mean by this

it means when used against heavily armoured foes, you're not going to get an arrow into them.
on the other hand, if you manage to get one into a peasant, it's going to stick in them.
the head is sometimes held on with beeswax, and stuck in the ground so it's dirty.

the most common deaths due to arrow that aren't insta-kills are infection and attempting to remove it.

what was meant though, was that there's a misconception that you have to be practically shanked by a broadhead to die (as if you were stabbed with a sword), and any armour that prevents penetration means you're going to shrug that arrow off.

Oh you're right, I guess English would be correct? As a non Albion, I sometimes get confused by the weird nomenclature

>People had no problem surviving musket shots or even in very rare cases cannon balls, while wearing breastplates
>somehow arrow will deliver so much blunt force it will kill them
Yeah Anglo, dream more.
t. not French

Lindy is occasionally right, people need to accept that.

I agree that the test was flawed, and I addressed that in >And of course no arrow is going to penetrate hardened solid steel plate, with a nearly spherical profile no less.

But some people actually believe that happened.

My point (very inarticulately laid out) was that the traditional narrative of the armor-piercing longbow is completely wrong, and I used the gambeson video for that. Perhaps would have been a better video for that.

Hello Pierre Baptiste de Baguetteville.

I don't know what kind of frenchlet cannons you were using or if you call hiding behind a wall a """breastplate""". Yes early muskets were crap against armour because it's a 10 gram soft lead ball. Traveling quite fast but still.
An arrow is literally 10 times the mass of a bullet (177 grain .50 lead ball vs. standard quarter pound livery war arrow).

One of the lads in the warbow community put up a vid where he took a pig carcass, gave it a gambeson and steel chest plate, then shot it with a heavy bodkin war arrow out of a yew warbow. Upon impact the arrow snapped 3/4 up the shaft and barely left a stain on the plate.
He took the pig out and looked at it, the spinal column was shattered.

Literal scientific proof that can be replicated easily and indefinitely.

This is the last post you'll get frenchcuck, if anyone wants to b8 with conjecture and powerlevel autism, they can brace a bow for themselves and do experiments.
Just don't talk shite if you can't bend a 150 lb. warbow and wield the true power of the Anglo.

>For in troth when I was in the french Kings service amongst the olde bandes of footemen, I did greatly commende the force of the Long-bowe, but how was I answered: to be shorte even thus, "Non non Anglois, vostre cause est bien salle car dieu nous a donnes moyen de vous encountrer apres, vnautre sorte que en temps passe". No, no, English man saith he, your case is become fowle, for God hath given vs meanes to encounter with you after an other sorte then in times past, for nowe saith he the weakest of us are able to give greater wounds, then the greatest and strongest archer you have: & when I replyed, as sir John Smith often dooth that the number of arrowes dooth come so thicke, that it was lyke unto haile: well saith he but it is not to be feared, as that weapon that dooth kill where it lightes: for saith he, when I doo marche directlye upon them and seeing them comming, I doo stoupe a little with my head, to that ende my Burgonet shall save my face, and seeing the same arrowes lighting upon my heade peece or upon my brest, pouldrons, or vambra∣ces, and so seeing the same, to be of no more force nor hurtfull: then doo I with lesse feare then before, boldelye advaunce forwardes to encounter with them.

It doesn't sound like anybody's ribs were being broken by these supposed battering ram arrows.

>Literal scientific proof that can be replicated easily and indefinitely.
>some dude on youtube
>science
>doesn't even link it

>One of the lads in the warbow community put up a vid where he took a pig carcass, gave it a gambeson and steel chest plate, then shot it with a heavy bodkin war arrow out of a yew warbow.
But you haven't linked the video.

Do you have a single historical source for bones being broken through armor with an arrow?

>An arrow is literally 10 times the mass of a bullet (177 grain .50 lead ball vs. standard quarter pound livery war arrow).

.50 caliber is very small for a muzzleloader. Early muskets were often as large as 8 bore, or .835 caliber, which is about 770 grains, and the projectile can be 5-10x as fast as an arrow shot from a traditional bow.

>the true power of the Anglo.
Funny you say this, most factions in Britain after the 100 years war were bending over backwards to try and claim to be the Return of the King, the Briton who returned to remove the Anglos.

Anglos are a meme invented by Protestants to alienate Catholics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

[muffled La Hire laughing in the distance]

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny

>Useless point really, since if that's all you're wearing then you're going to die from impact or at the very least break every bone in the contact area and bleed internally on the ground
No

>Arrows are not shivs lads, they don't kill by gutting you or draining blood.
That is literally exactly what they fucking do.

>However, again, any knight that comes riding into an arrow square into his chest is going to get his ribs and spine BTFO and probably get dismounted.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
>sheeeeeit

Fucking. No.

"MUH INFECTIONS" is a fucking meme. Giving a man an infection that will kill him eventually is FUCKING USELESS when he's 20 yards out and riding at you full tilt with a lance.

>MUH DIRT
they put them in the ground because point down arrows are very fast to fucking Nock.

...

...

...

...

...

I think you are trying to hard. You mixed situations, it's very often mentioned, that
>swords are so heavy, that even if they won't penetrate armour, they will break bones!
And followed that logic with bows.
It just doesn't work this way(36s).
youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
>Sir Thomas Gresham (d. 1597), overseeing arms procurement for Queen Elizabeth stated ‘Spare the bows and arrows...for they are of no force against an armed (i.e. armoured) man’
>‘the armoured gentleman had nothing to fear from a commoner with a crossbow or longbow’

>warbow community
I kinda feel for you. English memebows were heavily romanticized, and in early 2000' there were dozens of youtube videos, of how easily longbow will pierce breastplates. Of course basically all of these videos are worthless now (they don't state any information about either quality of armour, or both armour and bow). Longbow myth is also strong in mainstream media. But few years ago something horrible happened. People with actual knowledge started speaking about how armours were in fact really good at their job, and later some test happened, which "discovered", that longbows will do jack shit against proper armours. And even worse, fucking Lindybeige did video about that.
There was similar situation with Katanas. And now you face the same problems as they. Katana lovers went from
>katana best swords in the history, it's basically alien techology
to
>bu..but katanas are still viable weapons! (in some cases)
Now you, warbow communities will try to push some "god tier blunt force longbows" agenda?

Thanks.

>youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
When are we going to finally get a medieval/fantasy movie with a guy in armor like this taking out a whole room like the Terminator?

...

Say what? There's literally one guy in the Wars of the Roses anywhere near that and he was Henry VII who put it out that he was the Son of the Dragon/ Y Mab Darogan who would free the Welsh from the English.

All the rest were fighting based on blood ties, political influence and money.

Son of Destiny sorry.

markstretton.blogspot.com/2016/05/does-arrowhead-need-to-penetrate-armour.html

The bottom line is that even Stretton who is a huge yewaboo doesn't know of any actual evidence of a non-penetrating arrow wound killing.

>b-but absense of evidence is not evidence of absense

So basically, this guy has 30 researched topics on his page and in every one of them he tests a different claim or hypothesis, all with a scientific basis and often with the help of a prestigious research institute. He clearly documents his results, then draws conclusions.

This triggers the frenchcuck because he is unable to extrapolate that a force double what is considered fatal is able to deliver a killing blow in a vital area.

>nice science and experiments, however this isn't true because I said so, tough luck pal

Do you want a dubious account in a 14th century manuscript or something? What is evidence to you, a guy in full armor being shot with an arrow and then dying on the spot? Would that be acceptable to you?

ffs, some of these ballistic tests are done the same way in which bulletproof armour is determined to stop a certain calibre, by a company that makes bulletproof armour.

See
That's a couple of unrelated sources all telling more or less the same thing isn't it?

only two of those are specifically about armour and they're all late renaissance accounts of well made armour stopping a few arrows.
refute the scientific reasoning and data instead of arguing how historical accounts should be interpreted.

How is the 15th century late Renaissance? The Renaissance overlaps from the Late Middle Ages to the early modern period and ends around 1600 AD.

>Do you want a dubious account in a 14th century manuscript or something?
Good luck studying history if you think a fanboy's hypotheticals are stronger evidence than the primary sources.

(((primary sources))) like French """"""historians"""""" who just had their entire knighthood absolutely BTFO and ran crying to the books to rewrite history.
There are plenty of outrageous claims on both sides, but you don't see us itt claiming arrows could go through both pairs of a knight's leg armour, through the horse, and out the other side even though there is such a claim in a so called primary source.

Last reply you're getting, refute the science and the evidence or piss off.

>even though there is such a claim in a so called primary source

Sauce?

And no not that welsh guy.

reminder that every french woman dreams of a big anglo cock in her pussy

Stretton does not account at all for the energy loss from hitting armor, and armor is the entire reason for this blunt trauma special pleading. In one test Stretton shot a pig with a blunt arrow a bunch of times and managed to break some ribs, but the pig wasn't wearing any armor. Even .22LR can break ribs, but a .22lr killing with non-penetrating hits on medieval armor is doubtful. A .22lr can actually have a lot more kinetic energy than Stretton's arrow (141-277J from Wikipedia figures vs 152J for Stretton's arrow)

Hahaha How The Fuck Is French Armour Even Real Nigga Just Shoot The Horses Like Nigga Just Aim Lower Hahaha

>This triggers the frenchcuck because he is unable to extrapolate that a force double what is considered fatal is able to deliver a killing blow in a vital area.
Oh dear fucking God, you are actually believing that. And I am still not French.
From that article
>Paul was very helpful, and told me that there is a HSE document on “Controlling Risks Around Explosives Stores”, which states that if a fragment/missile strikes a vital area with a kinetic energy of 80 Joules or more, then it is considered to be a fatal blow.
But even author says
>although there is the armour’s ability to spread and dissipate the force to consider into this equation.
So basically, arrow shot point blank from a warbow delivers so much force, that it's capable to deliver lethal hit, under assumption:
>arrow will not penetrate skin
>human is not wearing any armour
Whoa, it sure showed us. But guess what, armour WILL help. Even author of that article noted
>It is believed that a rigid breast plate will transfer most of the impact energy to the wearer, although it will be spread over a much wider area. Glancing blows on a rigid plate will not transmit full energy to the wearer either

But eheheheh, sure, arrow having double lethal energy needed to kill someone, it is for sure dangerous. But imagine, if something had like... Twenty times that energy! Or even more. Like for example, guns. Ak-47, where bullet at the beginning has 2000J. So, 25 times more Joules, than needed to deal fatal blow. That means, basically there is no way to survive being shot from that, isn't it?
youtube.com/watch?v=6x59iN4KMz4

based La Hire

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gerberoy

He kept doing it the absolute madman.

chek em, and also you know that he will try to say somthing that modern armour transfers impacts better then plate, gambensson etc

It's sad that he died before Jeanne d'Arc retrial as he would have given an incredible testimony.

>Useless point really, since if that's all you're wearing then you're going to die from impact or at the very least break every bone in the contact area and bleed internally on the ground
>Arrows are not shivs lads, they don't kill by gutting you or draining blood.
>However, again, any knight that comes riding into an arrow square into his chest is going to get his ribs and spine BTFO and probably get dismounted.

These are some anglo delusions not even Lindy is capable of. I highly suggest you stop posting

...

bump

I hope he does. Perfect excuse to pull my plate carrier out and ask him to show me what makes my steel plate magically better than other steel.

quiver at the hip

kys