A Report of The Findings of The Defence Academy Warbow Trials Part 1 Summer 2005

Arms & Armour, Vol. 4, No.
1, 2007
A report of the findings of the Defence

Academy warbow trials
Part 1 Summer 2005
Paul Bourke* and David Whetham**
Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Trustees of the Armouries
*Cranfield University / **King’s College, London
In 1992, Peter Jones established a scientific benchmark for the discussion about the
effectiveness of the medieval longbow. Since then it has often been employed as the basis
for those seeking to demonstrate, compare or contrast or re-evaluate the historical role
played by this weapon system. While the authors of this paper acknowledge the
importance of Jones’s tests in establishing a foundation for the scientific analysis of
the effectiveness of the medieval longbow, it must also be acknowledged that some of the
assumptions in the tests made by Jones are now considered flawed or have otherwise been
called into question by shifts and developments in historical opinion. The aim of these
tests was to complete a series of trials repeating the work done by Jones to a standard
that is satisfactory to traditional archery experts, historians, blacksmiths and academics
alike, allowing a new evaluation of the power and effectiveness of the longbow and its
performance against armoured targets concurrent with current historical opinions from a
range of disciplines. Once the tests were completed, the team would try and recreate the
results in the laboratory to provide a basis for future testing.
Introduction
There has been much debate over many years as to the effectiveness of the late
medieval (14th–15th century) longbow. In addition, there has been some well
intentioned but flawed research published by scientists over the past fifteen years
with little or no grasp of archery or history, or worse, instances of ‘TV science’
where the requirements of televisual narrative appear to have been allowed to
dictate what is recorded as the outcome of experiments (for example, Granada
2003).
One of the more respected bodies of work on the effectiveness of the medieval
warbow was a paper published by Peter Jones in 1992. It has since often been
quoted by those seeking to substantiate their arguments with scientific evidence
and has therefore proven to be an influential piece of work in guiding the debate
© 2007 The Trustees of the Armouries DOI: 10.1179/174962607X177436

54 Bourke and Whetham
surrounding the weapon (e.g. DeVries 1997: 454–470). While the authors of this
experiment acknowledge the importance of Jones’ tests as establishing a founda-
tion for the scientific analysis of the effectiveness of the medieval longbow, it
must also now be acknowledged that some of the assumptions in the tests made
by Jones are flawed or have otherwise been called into question by shifts and
developments in historical opinion.
The aim of these trials was to take the Jones tests as a starting point and to
make a new evaluation of the power and effectiveness of the longbow and its
performance against armoured targets concurrent with current historical opinions
from a range of academic, historians, traditional archery experts and blacksmiths.
Once the tests were completed, the team would try and recreate the results in
the laboratory to allow more thorough investigation of impact velocities so
effectiveness at various ranges could be determined in a consistent manner as it is
extremely difficult and inefficient to conduct such tests at longer ranges in the
field.
Review and critique of Jones 1992
For his 1992 paper, Jones conducted tests using replica medieval arrows loosed
from a longbow into various unsupported iron plates at a range of 10 m. This
work, whilst thorough and containing valuable analysis of the metallurgy of some
period arrowheads, is now seen to fall short in a number of areas and can no
longer be accepted as representative of the effectiveness of the medieval warbow.
These areas include the style and power of the bow employed, the weight of the
arrow, the choice of arrowhead and the lack of support of the target.
Based on current historical opinion it is felt that Jones used far too light a draw
weight of bow, with a modest drawlength — a design similar to Victorian
target archery bow rather than a medieval warbow. The Victorian target bow is
the pre-eminent ‘longbow’ of modern times. It has a stiff centre section and limbs
which bend. The bow is drawn to the chin (approx 28 in). This makes for a
forgiving, accurate bow which is not fatiguing to shoot. However, medieval
design bows are said to ‘come compass’. A compass bow is one which flexes as
one from tip to tip, thereby storing more energy as the entire bow is being loaded,
including the area of the hand grip. This flex through the grip makes these bows
more challenging and fatiguing to shoot and is the reason why they are no longer
commonly found, particularly at heavier draw weights, in modern ‘traditional
archery’. As a ‘warbow’, these bows are also drawn to the side of the face, usually
in excess of 30q. The compass and target longbows are illustrated in figures 1a
and b.
As a result of the chosen bow, the arrows used by Jones were rather small when
compared, for example, with those found on Henry VIII’s Tudor battleship the
Mary Rose which had an average shaft length of 30 in (76.2 cm). Jones’ experi-
mental arrows were also roughly 2/3 of the weight of these arrows (Mary Rose
2006). It is now widely believed that the Mary Rose arrows are very similar to
their medieval predecessors. Jones also used only a single type of arrowhead — a
Defence Academy warbow trials 55
Figure 1 (a) Compass bow and (b) target bow (Greenland 2001: 13–14).
long bodkin known as a Type 7. However, this head was of a very specific type
suitable for penetration of only mail or soft armour and which would have been
practically obsolete by the late 14th century. Jones used this head against some
quite thick plate armour and, unsurprisingly, found that the level of penetration
achieved was small. The size and weight of these heavier arrows indicate that
they not only required a very powerful bow to loose them but also that they were
capable of delivering a considerable amount of energy to a target (see Table 1).
Table 1 Impact energies
Weapon Kinetic energy, J
Sword/axe* 60–130
1200 lb 15th century Genoese crossbow2 100
Longbow arrow* 80
Head 1 (Long bodkin) 75**
Head 2 (Short bodkin) 86**
Head 3 (Lozenge) 92**
*Williams 2003: 945

**to nearest Joule
The experimental approach used by Jones for target mounting is believed to be

less than ideal. It was stated (correctly) that flesh on its own puts up relatively
little resistance to penetration. From this, it was decided that the presence of flesh
behind the target was also irrelevant. Unfortunately, this ignores the effect of flesh
in supporting the target. A target plate supported on a flesh / body simulant will
behave differently to an unsupported plate. An analogy could be made with trying
to press a pencil through a loose sheet of paper — because the paper will move,
it can be difficult to penetrate the paper. When the paper is backed with some-
thing like a soft eraser, it becomes far easier to push the pencil through the paper
as there is now some resistance against which to push even though the eraser
itself provides very little resistance to a sharp pencil on its own. It is felt
that supporting an armour plate in a similar way to if it was worn on a body is

important to understanding the performance of the armour against arrow
penetration. In the science of modern body armour testing it has been established
that a backing makes a significant difference against ballistic and stabbing
performance (Croft 2003). As a result all police body armour in the UK is tested
on a flesh simulating backing because of its effect.
Jones also conducted an analysis of the thickness of period armour from the
late 1300s to the late 1400s of German and Italian provenance (Jones 1991: 115).
This analysis covered several helmets (bascinets) but only a single breastplate.
Jones’ helmet analysis sits well with the opinions of one of the UK’s most
experienced armoursmiths, Roy King, who corroborates the findings of an extra
thick portion at the back of some helmets, indicating that this region is a function
of manufacture due to it being the point at which the helmet is drawn out
from (King 2005). In his magisterial work on metallurgy, Williams conducted a
comprehensive study of the thickness of later breastplates (front) for both
horseman and infantry applications (Williams 2003). The breastplates surveyed
were taken from a range of collections from Germany, Italy and the UK to give
a spectrum of European armour from the late 1400s through to the late 1600s.
Whilst the later data is not relevant to medieval armour it is included for interest
(especially regarding the thickness of certain pieces). Research conducted by
Williams indicates that breastplates from the period of the later part of the
Hundred Years War and the Wars of the Roses were around 2 mm in thickness
(Williams 2003: 913–915). Other parts of the armour would, of course, have
been different thicknesses; for example Table 2 details artefact A.22 from the
Table 2 Thickness of Wallace collection artefact A.22
Location on artefact Thickness, mm
Breastplate 1.3
Backplate 1.0
Helmet skull 1.5
Legs 0.8
Shoulders 1.1
Cuisses (thigh) 0.7
Tassets (upper thigh) 0.8
Collar 1.1
Wallace Collection (Jones 1995). This information is not included to represent

some kind of ‘standard’ but to give a very general idea of the distribution of metal
one might find within the same suit of armour.
Jones does not comment on the provenance of the armours from which he
draws his hardness data. Assuming that this is from the same collection of armour
for which he has thickness data (German and Italian), this leads to an interesting
comparison with research done by Williams on pre-1400 German and Italian
armours (Williams 2003: 62–65, 331–332). This research has found armours of
somewhat higher hardness, between 130 and 399 Hv, compared with those
armours tested by Jones of between 100 and 250 Hv for the period 1400–1550.
One of Williams’ findings of additional interest is that English armour from the
mid to late 1300s is, in general, quite soft, from 108–200 Hv, with the occurrence
of the occasional exceptionally hard piece of 290 Hv and 430 Hv (Williams 2003:
731). By the early 1500s, armour appears to be somewhat uniformly harder:
Williams lists some of Henry VIII’s early armours as ranging from 217 Hv at the
bottom end to 295 Hv (Williams 2003: 733–735). However, this variety in
armour hardness is indicative of the problems with research in this area. Most of
the surviving armour available to test are unique pieces in their own right and, as
such, it is hard to define an ‘average’ armour from any given period. It should
also be noted that it is likely that more of the ‘good’ armour has survived as it
would have been looked after even after it had outlived its usefulness.
This project concentrates on plate armour rather than mail for several reasons.
The limitations of mail armours were beginning to become apparent by the 13th
century (Williams 2003: 42, 942–943). At the same time, heavy longbows
were beginning to make their mark on the European battlefield. Gerald of Wales
describes how dangerous facing the longbow was becoming even before the 12th
century. At the siege of Abergavenny in 1182 Gerald famously comments on
how arrows were piercing an oak door 4 in (10 cm) thick. In another incident he
comments how a knight was pinned to his horse by an arrow which went though
his long mail shirt, through to pierce his mail breeches, his thigh, through
the wooden saddle and on into the horse (Gerald of Wales 1978: 112). Whilst
this sounds similar to the JFK ‘Magic Bullet Theory’ and no doubt has been
embellished with time, the story still gives an idea as to how little protection
against arrows mail could give. Curry attributes three of the four factors leading
to an increased use of full plate armour in the 15th century to missile weapons,
citing the growing use of the longbow by the English, the crossbow by the
French, and the trend towards dismounted combat, itself a result of the vulner-
ability of horses to missile weapons (Curry 2001: 422–426). Williams comments
on the number of links required to make a knee length mail shirt (28–50,000)
and the fact that up to 100 days of labour could be required to make a single shirt
(Williams 2003: 43). After the Black Death, labour costs and thus the cost of a
coat of mail increased significantly. It appears to the authors that it is valid to
believe that a point was reached at which plate armour not only offered better
protection than mail but was also cheaper. As such (and as the experimental
testing of mail requires much effort and expense in procuring suitable test
material of the appropriate pattern), Part 1 of this study will look at plate armour
only.
Jones concentrates his investigation on the long bodkin (British Museum
category ‘type 7’) style of arrowhead, this head was in use at the beginning of the
Hundred Years War but rapidly became obsolete as plate armour became more
common because it provided good protection against this ‘delicate’ arrowhead.1
The needle bodkin was therefore rapidly superseded by a shorter, stouter (‘type
10’) bodkin and more bespoke lozenge–shaped plate piercing arrowheads as the
Hundred Years War progressed. As in any arms race, as soon as a weapon forces
the development of an armour to protect against it, a new weapon to defeat the
new armour will be born out of necessity. There is, however, evidence of these
supposedly obsolete long bodkin arrowheads being in use far longer than the
developments in armour might suggest. In addition to this, bodkin arrows of a
decidedly unfeasible length also exist, for example one is a full 14 cm in length,
surely too fragile to achieve penetration through plate armour of any thickness
(Jones 1992: 113). Heads of this length will fail due to buckling and this is almost
a certainty with an oblique impact inducing a bending moment in the slender
head. A square and true impact will also fail the arrowhead by buckling if the
plate is sufficiently strong enough to resist initial penetration. This continued
occurrence of long bodkin arrowheads which are inferior to, require more
material and take longer to manufacture than short ‘Type 10’ bodkins, may be
explained by work and exhaustive testing carried out by Stretton who makes
the fascinating suggestion that this type of arrowhead was used as the core for
creating very effective fire arrows (Stretton 2005b: 16–20).
Arrowheads themselves are exceptionally difficult to quantify in terms of qual-
ity relative to one another, not only due to the wide ranging design sub-groups
but also the variance within each sub-group. What investigation has been done
has often concentrated on hardness and microstructure. This is a fair way of
grading the material quality as it has been known from an early time that
the hardness of an arrowhead is important for its performance. In 1405/6 there
was an Act of Parliament passed by King Henry IV which would commit an
arrowsmith to jail should his products be found to be soft (Starley 2000: 179).
There has been a limited degree of testing of this type on extant arrow heads.
Referring to small broadheads, Jones says ‘The blade is always hard, typically 350
Vickers Hardness Number’ (Jones 1992: 112). Practical tests by Starley on period
crossbow and arrow heads found levels of hardness ranging from 100–250 Hv
(Starley 2000: 178–186). Testing by Bourke, Whetham & Stretton have found
hardnesses of 105–158 Hv in a larger, lozenge-shaped medieval arrowhead
(Bourke, Whetham, Stretton 2005). However, there is very little data on long
‘Type 7’ bodkins. The process used to manufacture these arrowheads suggests
that they could be quite hard, especially at the tip due to the forging process.
Test equipment
Bow: The heavy draw-weight bow used was hickory backed ‘compass’ yew as
opposed to being self yew. This is a concession to reliability as a result of the
Figure 2 Mark Stretton with his 140-lb bow.
scarcity of suitable quality yew. It has a draw weight of 140 lb at 32 in and has a
strung length of 80 in. This is a well shot bow and has come down from a ‘new’
weight of 160 lb. Jones used a bow with a draw weight of 70 lb at 28 in. This was
a modern style of longbow (figure 2) influenced by Victorian designs and
shooting technique (stiff handle for a forgiving loose upright stance, straight draw
to the face as opposed to a ‘full compass bow, canted stance draw past the face).
Current historical opinion, backed up by the Mary Rose findings, support a
weight of between 90 and 150lb and a drawlength of around 30 in.
Modern bow string materials were used in preference to a more traditional silk/
hemp string. It is felt that this is a justified concession to practicality. Considering
the draw weights and arrow weights being used, any benefit afforded by a
lightweight string material is likely to be so small that it can be ignored. If these
tests were using a modern target recurve bow with light weight and quick-acting
limbs then string weight would be of importance.
Arrow shafts (figure 3 a–c) are 31.5-in-long aspen, 7 in Turkey pinion flights,
string bound, 1-in horn nock insert in accord with the British Long-Bow Society
standard arrow based on findings from the Mary Rose (British Long-Bow Society
2001). Ash is considered to be an ‘ideal’ arrow-shaft material in terms of strength
to weight and durability. The use of aspen was not expected to perform signifi-
cantly better than ash and is still a historically correct material. The arrows used
by Jones were roughly 2/3 of the weight of these arrows and, as such, the arrows
used here will carry significantly more kinetic energy than those used by Jones. A
number of identical arrows were made for the purposes of this testing. All were
shot before the test to confirm their consistency.
Published by Maney Publishing (c) The Trustees of the Armouries 60 Bourke and Whetham
Figure 3a–c Arrow shafts
All arrowheads were made by experts with a large degree of professional

experience. The heads were made from Victorian iron. The lozenge arrowhead
was intentionally hardened using a traditional technique of heating in a pot of
bonemeal. Lozenge heads like these were in use from the end of the Hundred
Years War and were employed throughout the Wars of the Roses. They are
similar in appearance to heads commonly found on crossbow bolts (figures 4–6).
Figure 4 Head 1: Long bodkin (similar to ‘Type 7’), 71 g, 31.5 in from nock to start of arrow
head. Ash shaft; bobtailed (1/2 in head, 3/8 in at nock). Vickers hardness: 190–200 Hv (Tip is
harder, approx 300 Hv), Head Araldited on. This was the arrow head type originally employed
by Jones.
Figure 5 Head 2: Short bodkin (similar to Type 10), 70 g, 31.5 in from nock to start of arrow
head. Vickers hardness: 230–250 Hv, aspen shaft; bobtailed (1/2 in head, 3/8 in at nock).
Arrowhead attached with hotmelt glue (see text).
Figure 6 Head 3: lozenge, 87 g, 31.5 in from nock to start of arrow head. Vickers hardness:
480–500 Hv (hardened in bonemeal), aspen shaft; bobtailed (1/2 in head, 3/8 in at nock). The
lozenge head is a long, heavy diamond bodkin. Arrowhead attached with hotmelt glue.
Hot-melt glue was used to allow testing to continue should the arrows or arrow
heads be damaged. The main heads used for the testing (lozenge and short
bodkin) were kept as a constant and a number of identical arrows were available
for maintenance. The use of a hot-melt glue as opposed to a more conventional
hard-setting glue raised issues which will be discussed later.
Armour
The initial thicknesses of armour were chosen to reflect those used by Jones, a flat
plate is employed as it is somewhat more scientific than shooting at a breastplate
(where the angle of impact obliquity can vary wildly making consistency difficult).
The iron available today is generally of Victorian provenance. In general, this
material is of a poorer quality than that which would have been used in the 14th
century as it was mass produced with low emphasis on quality. Higher-end
material (such as charcoal-rolled iron) is somewhat more refined as it is closer in
quality to medieval iron. It was important that some of this expensive material
was tested to allow the results to be as relevant as possible to medieval materials.
Jones annealed his armour plates. The authors believe that it would be
detrimental to the performance of a metallic armour system to be in a softened
state rather than a hard one. The likelihood of any medieval armour intentionally
softening his product seems unlikely and as a result of this, all plates tested in this
work will be in as supplied condition (figures 7–9).
Figure 7 Metal plate 1.
Figure 8 Metal plate 2.
Figure 9a Plate micro ID, b Vickers machine.

Metallurgy of target plates
The thinnest plate tested also appears to be the hardest. This is thought to be due
to working of the metal by rolling to final thickness. Conventional ballistic
armour theory suggests that the harder the armour is relative to the projectile the
better it is. Therefore, metal plate 1 (figure 7) is the ‘best quality’ material of that
tested.
Microstructure
The aim of this section is to observe the size and structure of the iron comprising
the target plates. By performing microscopic examination any quality issues such
as slag inclusions etc will be visible.
Method
Small samples from each material tested were taken and encapsulated within a
bakelite cylinder (figure 9). The samples were encapsulated in such a way that
observations could be performed on the flat, struck face. The thickest material
tested was also included in bakelite in such a way that the through thickness
structure could be examined. Once encapsulated, the bakelite cylinder is ground
till the samples are flat and flush with the cylinder’s surface. After this, the surface
is ground with a diamond suspension abrasive fluid down to a surface coarseness
of 3 µm. Following this the surface is polished and etched in ‘Nital’, a nitric acid
based mixture. The result of this process is that the grain structure and internal
features of the material is shown in sufficient contrast to be observed.
Thin puddle iron (figure 10) has a reasonably large grain size; there is
some slag distributed throughout the iron with some localised concentrations.
Charcoal-rolled iron (figure 11) has a small regular grain size, some slag
Figure 10 Thin puddle wrought iron* 1.15 mm, good quality Victorian provenance, Vickers
hardness: 206 Hv (max 221, min 191), microstructure: large, irregular grains, slag inclusions.
*Iron ore smelted in coke furnace to cast iron, then furnaced and reheated to remove impurities
through stirring (about 98% pure iron with slag). (left x20, right x50).
Figure 11 Charcoal-rolled wrought iron 1.95–2 mm*, probably similar to medieval quality, about
99% pure iron with slag. Vickers hardness: 180 Hv (max 187, min 170). Microstructure: fine,
regular grain structure with few slag inclusions. Good quality, strong material. *This would
probably represent some of the thickest parts of the breastplate.
deposits. Carbon content estimated below 0.1%. In thick puddle iron

(figure 12), there does not appear to be much difference in grain size between
this plate and the thinnest plate. However, there does appear to more slag.
Composition
These spectra, taken from samples of the target plates, give a general assessment
of the material used for testing. More detailed investigation is possible, however,
at this stage, the general quality of the target iron is of interest.
The overview of the thin puddle iron (figure 13), shows that it is fairly
clean and free from significant amounts of slag, the presence of trace amounts of
phosphorus can be seen. Investigation of slag deposits has found typical amounts
Figure 12 Thick puddle wrought iron 3.25 mm. As 1.15 mm plate but of lesser quality (required
numerous attempts to get good hardness readings due to inconsistencies), Vickers hardness: 172 Hv
(max 182, min 163). Microstructure: large amounts of slag inclusions, the through thickness
structure of the material is lamina in its appearance.
Figure 13 Thin puddle overview.
of silicon, phosphorus, sulphur and small amounts of manganese. Some small

iron oxide deposits were also found at grain boundaries indicating that this may
be recycled material or have been made in a dirty environment. These deposits
also had large amounts of silicon and calcium which are likely to have been
introduced through the smelting process.
The overview of the charcoal-rolled iron (figure 14) shows it to be cleaner
than the puddle iron previously discussed. There is a trace of silicon visible but
otherwise there are few impurities. The carbon content is notable. Carbon is the
hardest element to detect using this technique and as can be seen is significantly
more prominent than seen in the puddle iron.
From the overview spectrum of thick puddle iron (figure 15), it can be seen
that the presence of silicon and phosphorus impurities indicates the presence of
slag. The slag deposits were in general very dirty containing very significant
amounts of silicon, phosphorous, calcium, manganese, oxygen (in the form of
oxides) and even chlorine.
Testing and results
Jones made no allowance for the armour to be supported by a body as if it

was being worn: ‘No allowance was made for ballistic resistance of flesh because
the medical advice was that it is extremely small’ (Jones 1992: 115). This
Figure 14 Charcoal rolled overview.

Figure 15 Thick puddle overview.
statement was made on the basis of a single private communication with a profes-
sor of forensic medicine but it appears to have been applied without taking
into account the context of the experiment. The ballistic resistance of flesh itself
relative to that of the plate is indeed small. However, what is not accounted
for is the support that flesh would give a plate (see above). The clay backing,
‘Plastalina’, being used in these tests is the closest that can be obtained to a
human torso (short of using prohibitively expensive instrumented crash test
dummies) and is an oil-based flesh-simulating clay used in modern day police
body armour testing against ballistic and knife threats. The compliance of this
clay models that of the rib cage as a whole and has a similar resistance to flesh.
Obviously, a strike on bone will not be simulated by this arrangement. This clay
is a standard simulant developed for body armour testing and to be valid for the
police testing standard (PSDB), this backing has to be used at an elevated
temperature, in this case 35°C, to provide the correct degree of resistance. There-
fore, the blocks need to be changed after spending approx an hour outside of the
heating oven as their temperature (and their compliance) will change over time.
Target plates were mounted on 90 mm depth of Plastalina at 35°C in a
wooden, backless frame (the backed steel box was quickly discarded as a test item
after it was found that arrow penetrations were deeper than the box thickness,
hence the arrow heads were striking the back of the box and giving false
readings). Once the arrow velocity had been clearly established for each arrow
type, the remaining figures were taken as representative rather than reconfirmed
at each test. Impact energies were calculated using the standard equation:
KE=½mv2 where KE is kinetic energy (J), m is mass (kg), v is velocity (m/s).
Arrow 1 (long bodkin) was the first arrow retired from the test (Table 3)
due to repeated damage to the point caused by failure to penetrate. As the least
effective arrowhead type, this was not a significant issue. The shattering of arrow
2 (short bodkin) against the 2-mm plate at 60° was near the end of the day’s
shoot and it had already performed very effectively (although slightly outper-
formed by the lozenge). We did not determine whether or not it would have been
able to defeat the 1.15 mm plate at 60° although the authors are confident that it
would have achieved this along with the lozenge, based on previous performance
and similar characteristics.
Table 3 Test 1: Warbow at 10-m range
Arrow head Weight, Velocity, Target thickness, Angle of obliquity, Kinetic energy, Penetration,
g m/s mm degrees J mm
1 Long bodkin 71 46 0 (clay only) 0 75 100+1

2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 0 (clay only) 0 86 100+1
3 Lozenge 87 46 0 (clay only) 0 92 100 1
1 Long bodkin 71 46 1.15 0 75 1001
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 1.15 0 86 1001
3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 0 92 1001
1 Long bodkin 71 46 2 0 75 -2
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 2 0 86 -3
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 2 0 86 94
3 Lozenge 87 46 2 0 92 16
1 Long bodkin 71 46 3 0 75 -2
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 3 0 86 -5
3 Lozenge 87 46 3 0 92 -5
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 1.15 10 86 82
3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 10 92 94
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 2 10 86 75
3 Lozenge 87 46 2 10 92 136
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 1.15 20 86 82
3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 20 92 94
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 2 20 86 65
3 Lozenge 87 46 2 20 92 137
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 1.15 40 86 85
3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 40 92 85
2 Short bodkin 70 49.68 2 40 86 -8
3 Lozenge 87 46 2 40 92 5/129
Defence Academy warbow trials
3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 60 92 8010

3 Lozenge 87 46 2 60 92 -8
1Penetrated through to the other side of the clay (90 mm thick)
2Bounced out, point curled.
3Hot melted heads bounced out twice. Arrow socket forced open by impact
4Araldited head penetrated, then bounced out
5Bounced out
6Bounced out on first attempt but strike was very close to deformation in plate caused by previous penetration. Second strike penetrated and remained in
target
7Penetrated then bounced out, tearing plate as it left
8Scraped across plate, sparks, no penetration and arrow shattered
9Penetrated but failed to stick in, cut kite shaped hole due to angle of impact
67
10This was repeated with and without wax on the arrow tip with no difference to the result.
Table 4 Test 2: Laboratory1
Arrow head Weight, Velocity, Target Kinetic Penetration,

g m/s thickness, energy, mm
mm J
2 Short bodkin 70 50 1.15 87.5 802

2 Short bodkin 70 49.2 1.15 84.7 80
2 Short bodkin 70 47.8 2 80 –3
3 Lozenge 87 42.87 1.15 79.9 70
3 Lozenge 87 42.1 1.15 77.1 70
3 Lozenge 87 44.4 1.15 85.8 904
3 Lozenge 87 43.84 1.15 83.6 71

3 Lozenge 87 43.84 2 83.6 125
3 Lozenge 87 43.24 2 81.3 36
3 Lozenge 87 43.24 2 81.3 107
3 Lozenge 87 43.24 2 81.3 107
3 Lozenge 87 47.76 2 99.2 137
1For these and all subsequent shots, absolute max velocity measurement error=2.6%
220 mm less than achieved by the bow although velocity and therefore kinetic energy was higher
3No penetration, bounced out and dulled tip. Bow had same result except managed to penetrate 9 mm
4Suspect result as the arrow struck very close to previous hole in the plastalina clay
5Penetrated 12 mm but bounced out. Bow managed 16 mm and remained in target
6Dented plate and bounced off. Not seen as representative as arrow sabots believed to be wearing and
leaking air so replaced
7Dented plate and bounced out. Bow managed 16 mm and remained in target
Repeat of penetration tests in laboratory
For test 2 (Table 4), sponge sabots were placed around the nock end of the arrow
to provide a seal for the compressed air canon. Efforts were made to ensure that
this provided a ‘push’ force from the correct part of the arrow. The nock was
flush with the back of buffer with a pin used to equate to string. The front bung
was 70 mm from the front of the socket.
Discussion
Metallurgy
The hardness of the plates tested in this experiment falls in the lower half of
the hardness range of period armours which have previously been tested. This is
especially the case when compared with later medieval and early modern armours
where even the hardest of the plates used here would be softer than the softest of
Henry VIII’s armours. This is important as the hardness of an armour is one of
its prime methods of defeating a projectile. Jones annealed his plates to the fully
softened condition and it is therefore anticipated that his plates were softer than
the plates used in this work.
The 2 mm thick plate tested was ‘charcoal-rolled’ rather than puddle iron and
therefore had a far finer and more regular grain structure. This is better than
some of the grain structures seen in some 15th century and earlier plates but
at the same time worse than that seen in some later pieces. This plate is also
not especially hard. Jones comments on seeing spall from his armour and this is
interesting as his plates were annealed and therefore relatively soft, a condition
which does not lend itself to spallation. There was no evidence of spall from the
materials tested in this work. However, due to the backing it was not possible to
see any spall from the rear face.
The micrographs of 15th and 16th century breastplates in Jones (Jones 1992:
114) and Starley (Starley 2000: 181) show a microstructure which is somewhat
finer than the iron used in this trial. This suggests that the penetrations achieved
against the armour thicknesses tested would be less impressive against better
quality medieval armour. While starting from the position that much of the
armour that has survived to today is the ‘cream of the crop’ and that much
munition or low-grade armour has been lost to time or recycled, the authors also
accept the observation made by eminent metallurgist, Alan Williams, who noted
that even the best plate tested here is only of munitions-grade 15th century
armour and that Milanese suits of this period would have been of substantially
better quality, accounting for their popularity (Williams 2006).
The arrowheads used are of varying hardness but, in general, it appears that the
hardness of the modern replica arrowheads is slightly greater than the period
pieces. The hardness of heads 1 and 2 is equivalent to the very hardest of the
heads tested by Starley (Starley 2000: 182–184). Head 3 is especially hard but
this head was intentionally surface hardened. The difference in these findings
may be due to the fact that any surface hardening of the period arrowheads tested
has been lost due to corrosion over time. Jones comments that the hardness of
the blade portion of the small broadheads was 350 Hv and one might surmise
that hardened heads for defeating medieval armour may have been at least as
hard (Jones 1992: 112). As a result of his conclusions, Jones heat-treated all his
arrowheads to 350 Hv, significantly harder than the heads used in this trial. From
the investigations of period pieces, this is considered to be sound practice as
long needle bodkins require a lot of working to achieve their final shape. This is
usually accompanied with an increase in hardness in the highly worked areas due
to the resulting fine grain structure. It is assumed that designs which required less
work will consequently be softer (and also therefore less brittle).
Penetration tests
Several of the arrows on impact bounced out of the target plate or achieved
poor penetrations. It was observed that, after these impacts, the socket of the
arrowhead had opened up and the arrow forced into the head. It was concluded
that the hot melt glue (used to allow quick changing of arrowheads) was too
soft for purpose. There was general agreement amongst the test team that no
examples of period arrowheads had been found with this sort of socket damage.
The arrowheads were re-attached using an epoxy resin glue which gave a stronger
joint and no further sockets were forced open. Penetration was then improved
with those arrow heads. Stretton has completed some interesting tests on this area
and concludes that the kinetic energy stored in an arrow is normally transmitted
directly to the head. Where no glue is present, the socket is more likely to slip up
the taper of the shaft, forcing the socket open and taking energy away from the
arrow’s attempts to pierce and drive through the plate (Stretton 2006).
Against the thinnest plate tested (1.15 mm, i.e. 0.15 mm thicker than the plate
Jones used) penetrations were more than double that which Jones recorded
(for all heads tested). Against the medium plate (2 mm, the same as Jones but of
significantly better quality charcoal-rolled iron), Head 1 (long bodkin) failed to
penetrate unlike Jones’s work where 11 mm of penetration was achieved. This is
expected to be due to two factors: firstly, the target plate was significantly better
than that used by Jones and, secondly; the use of a heavier bow and faster arrow
speeds overpowered and buckled the arrow head rather than penetrating
the armour. Jones’ Long bodkin had approx 60% of the kinetic energy (KE) of
the long bodkin used in these tests (the rest of the arrows used here have approxi-
mately double the KE of Jones’ arrow). The failure of the arrowhead occurs
when a slender column is loaded in compression (such as a needle bodkin with a
normal impact against plate) as it has a tendency to buckle. A column will
have a ‘critical buckling load’ below which it will not buckle and fail (and thus
continue to apply force to the armour leading to penetration). Above this load,
the column will buckle and as soon as this occurs, the strength of the column is
massively reduced and the column fails rather than penetrating the armour. As
soon as an arrow strike is not perfectly normal to the plate, the head will buckle
far more quickly. At a range of 10 m, the yaw of the arrow due to the ‘archers
paradox’ effect is still strong enough to cause a non-normal impact (figure 16).
However, the correct heads for piercing of plate armour performed well,
with the lozenge (Head 3) performing the best although the really significant
penetrations still only occurred against the 1.15 mm plate. Against the thickest
plate (3 mm) neither Jones’ tests nor those detailed in this paper succeeded in
penetrating the armour.
As discussed above, the thickest part of a breastplate is likely to be around
2 mm though this is variable (see Table 2 for artefact A.22 in the Wallace
collection, no part is thicker than 1.5 mm). If the breastplate is made of particu-
larly good iron, the penetrations achieved in their own right are unlikely to be
fatal. If the breastplate has thinner regions, or indeed is of a thinner metal all over
(as plenty of examples are) the penetrations recorded in this work would certainly
prove disabling or fatal. Despite the possibility of a non lethal arrow strike on
a thick breastplate, a heavily armoured solider brought to the ground by a non-
lethal arrow impact in a muddy, chaotic battlefield would find his chances of
survival severely impaired. Additionally, the energy carried by the arrows tested
is so significant that even a non-penetrating impact in the right place might be
sufficient to cause death by blunt trauma due to internal injuries (see Table 1).
Figure 16 Type 7 headed arrow yawing as it approaches target plate.

The data recorded during these tests corroborates the figures quoted by
Williams very well indeed. The Health and Safety Executive lists an impact of 80J
as a level of energy sufficient to cause death by blunt trauma (i.e. a non penetrat-
ing impact) (Health and Safety Executive 2002). Whilst a breastplate is likely
to dissipate this somewhat there is still a good chance of a serious injury from a
non-penetrating impact. Against the 2 mm charcoal rolled iron plates there is very
little deformation around the impact site indicating that there is relatively
little energy absorbed by the impact, rather it is transferred to the breastplate and
therefore on to the wearer. This energy is obviously spread over a fair area and
the type of padding or undergarment worn may also have a significant effect,
however it evidently could potentially still be dangerous.
Repeat of penetration tests in lab

It is interesting to note that the attempt at re-creating arrow penetration in a
lab environment has so far failed to accurately simulate real world testing.
For example, experiments conducted for a the 2003 series Battlefield Detectives
involved ‘dropping’ the arrow head onto sheets of metal in an attempt to simulate
arrow strikes against armour (Granada 2003). Unsurprisingly, these tests ‘proved’
that the longbow was ineffective, ignoring the fact that the wrong arrowhead was
employed (a long bodkin rather than the short armour-piercing bodkin found on
the battlefield), the armour was backed with a solid piece of wood rather than
something that could simulate a person, and that simply dropping an arrowhead
onto a metal plate in no way replicates the action of the bow, even if the same
energy levels can be achieved in this way. The Defence Academy test team
wanted to see if it was possible to provide a more realistic laboratory test that
would at least take into account the above factors.
In this spirit, it was decided for the tests to employ a compressed air cannon as
it could be calibrated to reproduce the same velocity consistently while at least
allowing the arrow to ‘fly’. However, even employing this technology, the arrows
consistently failed to achieve the same degree of penetration that the bow
propelled arrows managed. There was a small degree of velocity error – the tests
with Head 3 (lozenge) were on average 3 m/s (10 ft/s) slower than the velocities
recorded out of the bow, however this is small error (less than 6%) and is not
expected to be wholly responsible for the differences seen. This is backed
up with the tests using Head 2 (short bodkin) where speed error was close to
0.5 m/s (1.6 ft/s). Here the same reduced penetration for the lab tests was
recorded.
Whilst the air cannon trials replicate the arrow speed to sufficient accuracy it
does not replicate a bow propelled arrow in terms of acceleration characteristics,
the flex of the arrow is not the same and nor is the axial rotation of the arrow due
to the spin stabilisation of the fletchings. An interesting phenomenon recorded by
the high speed camera was that bow propelled arrows rarely struck the target
straight and square — there was often a visible degree of yaw to the arrow. This
yawing is due to the effect known as the ‘Archers Paradox’, caused by the simple
fact that the arrow has to travel around the bow stave. Whereas the string returns
to the centre of the bow, obviously the arrow has to go past the bow to continue
Figure 17 Type 7 headed arrow fired from cannon not yawing as it approaches target plate (the
front sponge sabot can be seen preceding arrow).
on to the target. At first, inertia causes the arrow to buckle while the bow pushes
the arrow head to one side. The arrow shaft begins to vibrate and it is here
that it is so important that the arrow has the correct spine (flexibility) so that it
can recover from this and straighten out in flight as soon as possible. With heavy
draw weight bows (say over 90 lb) matching spine is of less importance than the
need for an arrow to ‘stand-in’ the bow (ie be strong enough to withstand the
considerable forces applied to the arrow) As a result the bending of the shaft and
paradox is reduced because of the necessary stiffness of the arrow, however a
yawing will still take place because of the effect of shooting around the handle
(Greenland 2001: 2–3). At which point this deviation in ‘clean’ flight dies out is
yet to be determined by further testing.
In contrast to this effect, all arrows propelled by the air cannon travelled
straight and struck the target square (figure 17). It appears valid to conclude that,
whilst counterintuitive, the angle of strike not being exactly 90° might actually
contribute to the effectiveness of the arrowhead penetration in some way when
combined with the acceleration profile, spin and oscillation. Clearly, more tests
are required on this phenomenon.
Conclusions
The longbow tests carried out by Jones in 1992 provided an important reference
point for debates about the effectiveness of the medieval weapon. The intention
of the 2005 Defence Academy Warbow Tests was to bring Jones’ tests up to date
with contemporary opinion regarding the type and power of the medieval bow,
weight of arrow, type of arrow head and the way the target itself was supported.
It was then attempted to recreate these results under laboratory conditions.
Metallurgical examination of the Victorian iron plate available for modern day
testing indicates that it is of poorer quality than medieval plate. Surviving armour
in general appears to be somewhat harder than the plate available to test. Char-
coal-rolled iron plate is a better representation of better quality medieval armour
although it would still not compare with the best Milanese armour. Modern
replica arrowheads appear to be a fair representation of good quality original
arrowheads although it is unknown how hard average period arrow heads were
or whether they would have been routinely surface/case hardened with the addi-
tional work this would have entailed. The replica arrowhead which was intention-
ally hardened using traditional methods is significantly harder than those period
pieces tested. The techniques required to harden metals to this extent were
certainly known about at the time so this could be due to surface hardening being
lost (perhaps up to 1 mm) over time due to heavy corrosion.
Against thinner plate (~1 mm), likely to be found in many areas of a suit of
armour, penetrations of 80 mm or so into flesh can be expected with any of the
arrowhead types tested. Against thicker plate (~2 mm), likely to be found on the
front of the breastplate, penetrations achieved are unlikely to be fatal in their own
right; however, the energy of the impact may still be lethal (further tests are
required). Against thick plate (~3 mm), likely to be found only on the thickest
parts of the breastplate and helmet, penetrations are unlikely. The effect of the
armour quality on the penetration performance is something that deserves more
tests. However, for the thinnest of the plates tested here, this factor, in the
authors’ opinion, is of less significance than the thicker plates simply due to the
huge degree of overmatch. After the initial penetration, the shape of the arrow
head means that there is little arrow/armour contact until penetration reaches up
the socket of the arrowhead. By the time the penetration has reached most of
the way up the socket, the hole in the armour will be almost fully developed and,
as such, the only influence of iron on slowing the arrow will be due to friction
between the shaft and the plate.
The long bodkin arrow (Head 1 / Type 7) is effective against thin armour;
however, as the thickness increases, the effectiveness of this arrowhead reduces
rapidly until a point at which it fails by buckling rather than penetrating. Jones
actually achieved better results using this type of arrow head with a lighter arrow
shot from a lighter bow and it is believed that a heavier bow just overpowers this
type of head. The short bodkin (Head 2 / Type 10) performed significantly better
than the long bodkin against metal plates, either in this test or in the original
Jones 1992 tests, and demonstrated the ability to punch through to a lethal depth
against thinner plate at an oblique angle of at least up to 40°. The lozenge-shaped
head penetrated the thinner plate even at an extreme oblique angle of 60° (if the
test arrows had survived, it may have been possible that the short bodkin would
also have been able to achieve this degree of penetration). Clearly, both the short
bodkin and the lozenge arrow heads performed significantly better than the
results achieved back in 1992. Arrow heads that were securely glued on to the
arrow shaft outperformed those that were merely hotmelted on and it was also
clearly established that war arrows loosed from a heavy bow possess a significant
amount of energy and are theoretically capable of killing by blunt trauma alone
should enough energy be applied to a critical area.
Some questions arose as to the distance of the test. At a range of 10 m, the
arrow flight has not fully stabilised and therefore this may have a detrimental
effect on impact performance. However, the decreased performance of the test
arrows in the laboratory when shot at similar velocities may indicate that striking
the target ‘square’ is less important than other factors such as arrow spin, stored
energy in the arrow shaft or even the effects of the Archer’s Paradox itself. This
raises some intriguing questions (to be explored in future tests) that show that
laboratory testing is not currently suitable for simulation of arrow impacts or for
accurately gauging the effectiveness of the medieval warbow.
Acknowledgements
The project co-ordinators were David Whetham (King’s College London), Paul
Bourke (Cranfield University) and Hilary Greenland (bowyer and fletcher,
SPTA). The test team comprised Mark Stretton (heavy bow expert, blacksmith
and fletcher), Hector Cole (master arrowsmith and archaeological blacksmith)

and Hugh Soar (archery historian). Thanks are due to Roy King (consultant
armourer), Dr Ian Horsfall, James Shattock and the Bashforth Laboratory.
Notes
1. The British Museum numbering system, introduced in 1940 and commonly used for
the categorisation of arrowhead types, is now considered to be slightly misleading
(Ward-Perkins 1940: 65–73). The Jessop numbering system, introduced in 1996, is now
considered to be more useful (Jessop 1996: 192–205). However, to avoid any confusion
the arrowheads used in this work are described individually below with photographs with
similarities to convention being noted.
2. Williams quotes work by McEwen suggesting a 200-J limit for crossbow bolts based on
experiments using a modern crossbow (Williams 2003: 919). No data is available for the
velocity of the Payne-Gallwey Genoese bow but using the weight data provided and
estimating a 50 m/s velocity (similar to our longbow) energy has been calculated by stan-
dard formulae. Due to the 18-lb weight of this weapon, it is unlikely to have been common
on the battlefield.
References
Bourke, P, D Whetham and M Stretton 2005 Analysis of medieval arrowhead, un-

published report, Defence Academy of the UK, Cranfield
British Longbow Society 2001 Rules of shooting. 4th Edition., Annex B, 11. Rotherham,
Factandfiction
Croft, J 2003 PSDB Body armour standards for UK Police, Pt. 2, ballistic performance. Publica-
tion Number 7/03/B Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch
Curry, A 2001 The Hundred Years War, in Holmes, R (Ed) Oxford Companion to Military
History. Oxford, Oxford University Press
DeVries, K 1997 Catapults are not atomic bombs: towards a redefinition of ‘effectiveness’ in
premodern military technology. War in History 4: 454–470
Gerald of Wales 1978 Journey through Wales and the description of Wales. Translated by L
Thorpe. Harmondsworth, Penguin
Greenland, H 2001 The traditional archer’s handbook: a practical guide. Bristol, Sylvan Archery
Granada, 2003 Battlefield detectives: Agincourt 1415. Grenada Television Product for Five and
the Learning Channel.
Hardy, R 1986 Longbow: a social and military history. London, Patrick Stephens Ltd
Holmes, R 2002 (commentary in) Royal Armouries Arms in Action Series II: Bow. Yorkshire
TV, Leeds.
Jessop, O 1996 A new artefact typology for the study of medieval arrowheads. Medieval
Archaeology XL: 192–205.
Jones, P 1992 The metallography and relative effectiveness of arrowheads and armor during
the Middle Ages. Materials Characterization 29: 111–117.
Jones, P 1995 The target. In Hardy, R Longbow: a social and military history. Appendix 3.
London, Patrick Stephens Ltd
King, R private communication with authors.
Mary Rose Trust 2006 Electronic archive. www.maryrose.org/mary_rose_archive.html
Monstrelet 1840 The chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet Vol 1. Translated by T Johnes.
London.
Payne-Gallwey R 1995 The book of the crossbow. Dover Publications
Rees, G 1993 The longbow’s deadly secrets. New Scientist, 5 June, issue 1876: 24
Soar, H 2004 The crooked stick: a history of the longbow. Pennsylvania, Westholme Publishing
Starley, D 2000 Metallurgical analysis of medieval quarrel heads and arrowheads. Royal
Armouries Yearbook 5. Leeds, Royal Armouries: 178–186.

Stretton, M 2005 Practical tests — part 2. The Glade No. 108: 52–56
Stretton, M 2005b Fire arrows. The Glade No. 109: 16–20
Stretton, M 2006 Practical tests — Part 4. The Glade No.111
Strickland, M and Hardy, R 2005 The great warbow: from Hastings to the Mary Rose. Stroud,
Sutton
UK Health and Safety Executive 2002 Controlling risks around explosive stores, review of the
requirements for separation distances. London, HMSO.
Ward-Perkins, JB 1940 London Museum medieval catalogue. London, HMSO
Waurin, J 1868 Anchiennes croniques. Vol II ed. ELCP Hardy. London, Longmans
Williams, A 2003 The knight and the blast furnace: a history of the metallurgy of armour in the
middle ages and the early modern period. Leiden, Brill
Williams, A 2006 Private correspondence with the authors, dated 11/10/06.
Comments
Kelly DeVries
Department of History, Loyola College, Baltimore MD
Reply
David Whetham and Paul Bourke
The following comments by Professor DeVries on the above paper are addressed in turn
by the authors and are published here (with references to the page numbers of the paper
and to the list of references at the end of the paper) in order to provide additional insight
into the study.
DeVries: As the authors say at the beginning of this article, several historians since
have used the 1992 experiments conducted by Peter Jones to justify their own
work. But they are also in need of review and updating, especially as the study of
longbow archery use and effectiveness has produced some interesting — and
sometimes controversial — results. Now I should say from the outset that I have
a few problems with some of the methodology used by the team making this
report, as will become somewhat clear below, but having said this I actually think
that it is important to publish any new results, so long as they follow the rigour of
these tests, thus allowing the debate over effectiveness to continue.
The debate is here in this article, too, although the authors in stating their
thesis indicate only a willingness to revisit Jones’s findings. I do have a slight
criticism of this, as by the time one reaches their conclusions it becomes clear that
in fact they claim not only to have revisited Jones, but to have proved the lethality
of longbow archery, even if no penetration of armour occurred. They also claim
to have shown that the bows used by English archers at the end of the Middle
Ages were very heavy, some 120–140 lb. This is not entirely surprising, as in
using Mark Stretton and others who have biases towards these heavy pull bows,
it might appear that such a thesis was preconceived before the tests began. Nor
is it surprising in that the authors sometimes dismiss methodologies without
detailed reasons, which, at least from the text at hand, seems to show somewhat
manipulated results to support their preconceptions. Hence my criticisms.
Bourke & Whetham: The purpose of the 2005 tests was to revisit the excellent
groundwork done by Jones back in 1992 and bring it up to date. To do this, a
team was assembled that would allow us to draw upon more than simply
academic experience. It consisted of experts in their fields as blacksmiths,
bowyers, fletchers, physicists and archery historians. After reviewing Jones’s work,
we agreed to use an appropriate heavier bow of the right design, the correct
arrow design and weight to match the bow (the bow and the arrows have to
be ‘matched’ or they do not work efficiently), the correct arrow head (rather
than an obsolete and mismatched head designed for a different purpose) against
a properly supported target plate.
There were, of course, still some limitations to these tests. One of the main
ones being not having a real suit of medieval armour on a real person to shoot
against (of course, we would need a representative suit, in itself, a whole area of
debate and several weeks to allow the consistency of the shooting in each section
of the armour and allow for the repairs between each shot). The enormous prob-
lems associated with addressing all of the potential difficulties led us to accept
much of Jones’s original methodology — specifically, metal plates shot at 10 m,
then angled to provide an increasingly oblique surface for accurate and consistent
measurements. The metallurgical analysis of the target plates was then provided.
Our second series of tests done in 2006 (to be published in the next edition
of Arms and Armour) do employ a range of bows from 110–150 lb, shot at a
number of differing ranges, to provide a broader spread of results, and we are also
hoping to secure funding for another series of tests against some replica armour,
specially forged using appropriate methods and materials. However, back in
2005, we had to start somewhere!
We are a little more concerned with the charge of manipulating results — much
of DeVries’ criticism seems to be aimed at our assumption that heavier bows were
the norm. The authors accept that there is a healthy debate about the effective-
ness of the medieval warbow, but we are also surprised that people still contend
that professional archers in the late middle ages might have been using such a
light weapon. The Tudor period bows recovered from Henry VIII’s flagship the
Mary Rose, have an average length of 78q and estimated pull weights of 100–
180 lb (Pratt in Hardy 1986: 209–217). The argument for smaller bows is neither
born out by the evidence (some more of which is addressed below), or common
sense. Both of the authors (hardly the most athletic of specimens — Paul weighs
in at under 10 st!) happily pull a 70-lb medieval-style self-yew bow on the type of
irregular basis that most amateurs today have to settle for. This is a heavy pull for
us but we don’t do this professionally. With eight hours of daily practice, a good
diet and the incentive of a continued salary, it is difficult to see why a professional
medieval archer would stick to something this light when he had the capability of
pulling a larger bow with its greater range and penetrating power. Our test archer,
Mark Stretton, routinely pulls 150 lb or more. The technology does not get more
complicated to make a bigger bow. Do people really think that someone capable
of pulling a ‘real’ bow like this would be happy with such a 70 lb ‘toy’ when
their livelihood (and life) depended upon it? In short, the bowyers feel these bows
can be made, the archers demonstrate such bows can be shot and the historians
generally agree that the archers were well paid professionals rather than the
wizened and weak peasants portrayed by Hollywood.
DeVries: The statement at the bottom of p. 54 that ‘It is now widely believed that
the Mary Rose arrows are very similar to their medieval predecessors.’ needs a
reference. As the Westminster arrow is of similar size this may well be accurate,
but without a date on the Westminster arrow and the late dates of the Mary Rose,
I think the statement is too bold without some substantiation.
Bourke & Whetham: Relevant references are Rees (1993) and Strickland & Hardy
(2005: 27). Moreover, why would the arrows be significantly different? The only
extant archaeological evidence shows arrows of this length. If someone believes
that at the height of the weapon’s popularity it was less effective because the
arrows used were smaller (thus indicating a smaller bow and the resulting reduc-
tion in power, etc.), surely the onus is on them to prove this as this goes against
the extant evidence?
DeVries: I appreciate the team using something to represent skin in these tests
(p. 56), but what about other clothes or padding? Armour was not placed on
skin alone, and all layers need to be factored into the tests — also probably the
potential movement of all of these layers in imitation of a man in battle. Again
these omissions should not keep the findings from being published, but a reason
why one layer was imitated but not the others might keep readers such as me
from worrying about the incompleteness of the test targets.
Bourke & Whetham: The Plastalina was not for representing the penetrative
resistance of flesh, but rather to assess the penetration of the plates themselves
when supported by a human torso. It was also hoped that we could determine the
level of trauma behind the armour, but this proved difficult to assess so the team
employed a Behind Armour Blunt Trauma (BABT) rig for the next series of tests.
Additional layers of cloth protection beneath the plates may or may not make a
difference. To determine this, further tests are required and we look forward to
being able to do this. We also would love to know how to imitate the movement
of a man in battle for future tests!
DeVries: Is the softness of English armour (p. 56) relevant without a similar
indication of continental European armour softness, especially as most English
arrows were shot at those targets?
Bourke & Whetham: Williams (2003) cites figures for European armour hardness.
However, the point here was to demonstrate the problems of accounting for the
clear variance in thickness and hardness in different suits of armour, not to estab-
lish if one country’s armour was harder or thicker than another’s, an assertion
that we doubt could be made authoritatively precisely due to this problem
(although we would be delighted to be proved wrong).
DeVries: Gerald of Wales is not a reliable source for judging the effectiveness of
weapons (p. 57). He exaggerates almost all of what he writes – what do they
mean embellish with time? One might as well use the Maciejowski Psalter as an
accurate portrayal of combat wounds, or the Song of Roland for sword penetra-
tion (through a helmet, armour, and the horse, too). Gerald certainly can not be
trusted. Far more sources talk about the effectiveness of mail, such as Joinville
who mentions arrows sticking out of every bit of the Crusaders’ mail but none
penetrating it or the layers below it.
Bourke & Whetham: Gerald of Wales probably does exaggerate, but one must
also not simply dismiss everything he says. While there are obviously many vari-
ables involved, practical tests demonstrate it is feasible to shoot a long bodkin
arrowhead 2q into seasoned oak. Not quite a palm’s breadth (taken to be about
3.5q) but not too far out either (Stretton 2005: 52–56). Joinville is a fascinating
source, but here he is talking about arrows shot from a short composite bow
rather the type of bow we are talking about. Even allowing for the better armour
available in the 15th century, at Agincourt Monstrelet recorded that ‘numbers of
the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen’ (Monstrelet
1840: 342). The eye-witness Jean de Waurin also recorded that many were dis-
abled or slain by arrows before they could come to close quarters (Waurin 1862:
213).
DeVries: Again there is the problem of substantiation when it comes to a state-
ment such as ‘it is believed that a point was reached at which plate armour
not only offered better protection than mail but was also cheaper’.(p. 57) Who
believes this? I have never read this, nor do Claude Blair or Alan Williams say it.
A reference is necessary.
Bourke & Whetham: We believe that given the economic facts this logically
follows combined with practical tests that demonstrate that riveted steel mail
provided little or no protection against any of the arrowheads, from crescent-
shaped through to heavy bodkin, when they were shot from a heavy bow
(Stretton 2005: 23). Obviously, plate can provide better protection than this.
DeVries: There are no historical references to fire arrows (p. 58) in the late
Middle Ages shot by longbows. Hollywood likes them, but historians really need
proof and something more than the obscure and inaccessible articles of Stretton
in The Glade (Stretton 2005b).
Bourke & Whetham: Rather than flights into Hollywood fantasy, this was simply
a suggestion to try to explain the existence of an arrow that otherwise appears
to be unusable. Used in this way, it does work — and very effective it is too! As
to the work being inaccessible, does the reader mean hard to read or hard to find?
Neither of these is a valid criticism given that The Glade is an international
publication. Just because Stretton is not an academic does not mean that one can
not understand what he is saying — a charge non-academics can rightly put to
many of us!
DeVries: Again substantiation is needed when the authors write ‘Current histori-
cal opinion, backed up by the Mary Rose findings, support a weight of 90–150 lb
and a drawlength of around 30q (p. 58) Strangely — or maybe not — when the
authors claim to be citing ‘current historical opinion’ or ‘it is believed’ they are
glossing over something that calls to question their conclusions or methodology.
In fact, there are many scholars who consider this opinion to be erroneous:
myself, John Waller, Valérie Serdon (her book, Armes du diable: Arcs et arbalètes
au Moyen Age, Paris, 2005, should really have been consulted somewhere in this
article).
Bourke & Whetham: See above.
DeVries: Modern bow strings are not the same as traditional silk/hemp string
(p. 59), and they do not give the same results. For one thing, they do not break
as regularly, and they do not need the same thickness as earlier strings — espe-
cially important as the thickness is determined by the nock size, with a modern
string filling the nock certainly more powerful than its medieval equivalent.
Again, this makes one question some of the results of these tests. Where is the
evidence to substantiate this claim?
Bourke & Whetham: Indeed, modern bowstrings are not the same as medieval
ones. From the size of the nock on the arrows that did survive on the Mary Rose,
we can deduce that the strings could have been no wider than 1/8 of an inch
(3.2 mm). This is similar to the thickness of many modern strings once wrapped
in serving thread (a reinforcing thread added to the string at points of wear).
The nock size is a red herring as this would be matched to the string size gener-
ally in use or it would be inefficient (fletchers were professionals who knew what
they were doing). If we knew how to make the strings and their protective resins
in the same way, we would. Again, it seems that to assume they were not as good
as today is to take a worse case scenario to the extreme. The concession to a
material that does not break as often appears to be both practical and fair.
DeVries: Why is aspen not used instead of ash? Again the two woods are quite
different and would produce different results, with aspen expected to perform
less well than the harder ash. Also aspen was the standard wood for English
longbow arrows — see Henry V’s prohibition against using aspen for anything
other than arrow shafts. More substantiation to support their claims here is
needed.
Bourke & Whetham: Aspen and ash are both employed in the test.
DeVries: Were any of the arrowheads steeled (p. 59)?
Bourke & Whetham: We are not sure which definition of steeling the reader is
using, but the test report clearly states where the arrowheads are case hardened
and the materials used to do this.
DeVries: Why are the authors confident that such an arrow (p. 66) would
penetrate armour 1.15-mm thick when shot at such an oblique angle as 60°.
Their findings do not suggest that they should support such a finding when there
was no penetration on the 2-mm plate when shot at this angle.
Bourke & Whetham: We are confident that the short bodkin would have pen-
etrated the plate at 60° because, as the results show, it had consistently performed
in a similar way to the lozenge. The lozenge achieved 80 mm of penetration at
this angle.
DeVries: The assertion of better armour quality (p. 68) should probably be
weighed against the Rhodes armours studied by Chip Karcheski and Thom
Richardson (Walter J. Karcheski, Jr. and Thom Richardson, The Medieval
Armour from Rhodes [Leeds: Royal Armouries and Higgins Armoury Museum,
2000]) before categorically claiming such.
Bourke & Whetham: Perhaps it should.
DeVries: I find it rather odd that on p. 70 and later the authors assert a lethality
figure that has been increased due to their estimation of wounded or ‘knocked
down’ soldiers dying from their injuries. This is unsupported by any evidence
in the article (or actually elsewhere). In fact, the healed wounds found on the
excavated bodies at Towton and Visby would suggest that it was quite likely that
a soldier could survive his wounds, even to the head and even from arrows.
Meanwhile the idea that non-lethal arrow hits to armoured soldiers caused deaths
at a high rate — as seems to be indicated by the authors – simply is not supported
by contemporary evidence. Finally, the Health and Safety Executive was unlikely
to have considered the very small impact of an arrow when determining their
blunt force trauma index.
I also question the use of a 1200-lb pull crossbow, which was unlikely to have
been used in many military conflicts. This does, however, indicate once again a
preconception of heavier weapon use.
Bourke & Whetham: The tests demonstrated that, while there was no penetration
of the thickest plate, the thinner plate could be pierced to at least a depth of 80
mm even at the most extreme oblique angle of 60°! Due to the less critical areas
likely to be covered in this thickness (although again, this not easy to substantiate
on a representative basis), this might not prove fatal, but the recipient of such a
wound is unlikely to be taking an active role in the ensuing encounter, and being
injured or at the least knocked off one’s feet, would likely be vulnerable to further
attack on a medieval battlefield, even if not by a longbow missile. The comment
regarding the HSE is probably valid. However, under armour, the impact will
likely be one of blunt trauma rather than point impact due to the spreading
out of the force of the impact. Finally, Payne-Gallwey (Payne-Gallwey 1995)
certainly believed the 1200-lb crossbow he was shooting was of medieval
provenance.
DeVries: On p.70, the authors begin to hedge their bets on the non-lethal impacts
being lethal because they finally and for the first time introduce padding and
undergarments on the soldier. These have not been factored in elsewhere in their
experiments. This also seems to contradict what they have already said about
these wounds and what they go on to say over the next couple of pages.
Bourke & Whetham: It is correct that we did not use padding. See above.
DeVries: The section entitled ‘Repeat of Penetration Tests in Laboratory’(p. 68)
is rather confusing. While criticizing the experiments of Battlefield Detectives — a
criticism I wholly support — the authors then seem to rationalize some of the
modern techniques they used in the lab, only to indicate some doubt of the
methods at the end of the section with ‘clearly, more tests are required on this
phenomenon’. One might suggest that this undermines the confidence in their
research that they exhibited earlier in the article.
Bourke & Whetham: This is what happens when you test something! Had we
wished to ‘prove’ a thesis, this would not have been difficult, but it would also
not have been appropriate. We do not have doubt over our ‘real world’ results,
we were simply attempting to recreate them in the laboratory. We were unable to
do this despite matching the velocity of the arrows. We did not set out to prove
it was impossible to replicate the results in the laboratory with this equipment.
DeVries If the vibration of the arrow is important (pp. 71–72) to consider in
the tests, then wouldn’t the wood used for arrowheads be important, too? The
authors dismissed aspen above, despite the fact that it would have vibrated more
than ash because of its density.
Bourke & Whetham: We were merely commenting that the laboratory testing did
not replicate the (substantial and very visible on the slow-motion camera) flexing
motion of the arrow shaft achieved in the ‘real world’ and that this is something
worth exploring further.
DeVries: What is the ‘contemporary opinion’ (p. 72) the authors are referring to
at the beginning of their conclusion? From recent work, I would say opinion is
evenly mixed between those who believe a lighter bow was used and those who
believe it was a heavy bow. Again, this indicates a preconceived thesis.
Bourke & Whetham: The ‘contemporary opinion’ includes Strickland & Hardy
(2005), Soar (2004) and Holmes (2002), as well as the team of experienced
practitioners involved in these tests. It is difficult to see what evidence the thesis
of a lighter bow actually enjoys in its favour.
DeVries: Once again (p. 73) non-lethal wounds are said to be lethal, something
not proven by the tests above or any other study. As the authors seemed to be
considering that padding and undergarments might add protection on p. 56
(I would say considerable protection, adding to that of the movement of the body
which is unconsidered by the authors), the introduction of lethality here seems to
hearken again to a preconceived thesis.
Bourke & Whetham: See above.
Conclusions
DeVries: As I indicated above, I do think that studies such as these should

be published. However, I remain unconvinced that they have achieved much
to advance the argument. Usually, if one sets out in a laboratory to achieve a
preconceived thesis, one will achieve it.
Bourke & Whetham: We are confident that, alas, the eminent Kelly DeVries
will remain unconvinced of the heavier bow thesis no matter how compelling the
evidence presented. We will, however, continue to try. Part II of the Defence
Academy series of tests conducted in the summer of 2006 will further add to the
debate.

A Report of The Findings of The Defence Academy Warbow Trials Part 1 Summer 2005

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Report of The Findings of The Defence Academy Warbow Trials Part 1 Summer 2005

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Arms & Armour, Vol. 4, No.

A report of the findings of the Defence

*Cranfield University / **King’s College, London

© 2007 The Trustees of the Armouries DOI: 10.1179/174962607X177436

Review and critique of Jones 1992

Table 1 Impact energies

Weapon Kinetic energy, J

*Williams 2003: 945

The experimental approach used by Jones for target mounting is believed to be

that supporting an armour plate in a similar way to if it was worn on a body is

Table 2 Thickness of Wallace collection artefact A.22

Location on artefact Thickness, mm

Wallace Collection (Jones 1995). This information is not included to represent

Figure 2 Mark Stretton with his 140-lb bow.

Figure 3a–c Arrow shafts

All arrowheads were made by experts with a large degree of professional

Figure 7 Metal plate 1.

Figure 8 Metal plate 2.

Figure 9a Plate micro ID, b Vickers machine.

Metallurgy of target plates

deposits. Carbon content estimated below 0.1%. In thick puddle iron

Figure 13 Thin puddle overview.

of silicon, phosphorus, sulphur and small amounts of manganese. Some small

Testing and results

Jones made no allowance for the armour to be supported by a body as if it

Figure 14 Charcoal rolled overview.

Figure 15 Thick puddle overview.

1 Long bodkin 71 46 0 (clay only) 0 75 100+1

3 Lozenge 87 46 1.15 60 92 8010

Table 4 Test 2: Laboratory1

Arrow head Weight, Velocity, Target Kinetic Penetration,

2 Short bodkin 70 50 1.15 87.5 802

3 Lozenge 87 43.84 1.15 83.6 71

Repeat of penetration tests in laboratory

Figure 16 Type 7 headed arrow yawing as it approaches target plate.

however it evidently could potentially still be dangerous.

Repeat of penetration tests in lab

and fletcher), Hector Cole (master arrowsmith and archaeological blacksmith)

Bourke, P, D Whetham and M Stretton 2005 Analysis of medieval arrowhead, un-

Armouries Yearbook 5. Leeds, Royal Armouries: 178–186.

DeVries: As I indicated above, I do think that studies such as these should

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen