The Franchise Should Be Limited

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

It looks nice but unfortunately it is a rather bad test. If one wants anything close to the real thing then the metallurgy is important, and in this test it seems they did the usual thing with some soft steel for the armour. That is how the needle bodkin suddenly becomes so great against the plate.

---

As armor improved the effectiveness of the bodkin point and the longbow declined. By 1429 it was completely out classed by heavy armor.

It is not like they were using high quality steel armor from the start.

Steel was a rare commodity when the longbow came into military use.

It is almost impossible to replicate what arrows of the period would do to armor of the period because iron is not available and all materials would need to be processed as they were in the era.
I find no fault with the test procedures. I doubt that actual materials would have rendered a widely different kill ratio, though the penetration may have been greater. The main reason I say this is because both the armors used and the arrow points were steel. The only thing missing would have been using hardened steel plate to signify top armor grades.

Iron arrow heads would have been forged and quenched to harden them. Plate armors were work hardened by hammering. Chain was not hardened nor were the plates for a coat of plate. Only the best quality of plate armor would have been heated and quenched. Some of it would have had a high temper but ascetics would also have played a part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Te...cksmithing.JPG

If you examine paintings of battle scenes of the time you will also note the color range of armor indicating the use of tempering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba..._froissart.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vi...les_VII_48.jpg

Blast furnaces were spreading to the west so actual steel was becoming easier to obtain in the early 1400s. Agincourt (1415) was the last great victory for the longbow. By Patay (1429) the tables had been turned.

It is not as if it was never effective.

No fault in the test procedures?

Needle bodkins found and tested so far are shown to be of unhardened iron and of lesser quality than the type 16. He use iron and steel wire for the mail armour. Yeah, because metallurgy is just either steel or iron and that is it! The jack coat (of unknown quality) is just 15 layers when it should be 25 to 30. That he use just two layers of linen for the mail test is also pretty low. This test simply has way too little information to draw any conclusions from. And the little information we do have shows a bias against the armour. If I was to make a Tiger tank replica of mild steel and fire AT rounds at it, I won't get very far in convincing anyone about the accuracy of the results by claiming that steel is steel.

So I find many faults.

If the metallurgy of medieval armour is your thing then you should go for The Knight and the Blast Furnace. It has hundreds of pages of microstructure and hardness for all kinds of armour.

AFAIK the various colours of plate generally comes from the ways of rust protection and would give blue, black or brownish colours. Fancy armour might be gilded too.

There is a difference between finding fault with a test vs. finding fault with the test procedures.

It is also not surprising that only unhardened points have been found. Most all finds of iron objects in the ground are of unhardened iron. Hardened iron and steel are much more prone to rust away in a very short time. We know from a 1405 statute that steel points were proscribed and Medieval requisitions state the requirement for “well steeled” arrowheads.

I would also doubt that unhardened points would pierce plate or coat of plate armor. I also would rather the jack coat to have been at a minimum of 25 layers of starched or treated linen.

Further estimated draw weights of war bows went as high as 185 lbs pull. (Some estimates go as high as 200 lbs., but the best modern bowmen are topping out at about 180 lbs to date.) The test was to simulate a 100 lbs. pull bow at range. We know that battle reports stated problems with penetrating plate armors as early as 1346 at Neville’s Cross. The reports I have seen say plate armor was safe at ranges beyond 100 feet. By Verneuil in 1424 armor technology had out stripped the capabilities of the longbow to match it.

In point of fact, there have been no accurate tests performed that I can find.

The half inch military arrow should not be fired from a bow under 110 lbs. pull and preferably in the range of 150 to 165 lbs. The arrow weight should be between 1200 and 1500 grains. Judging penetration should be done on the actual armor and protective garment assemblies as worn into battle not just a sheet of steel. Judging penetration vs. plate armors should be done using varying ranges under 100 feet. Arrow heads should comply with statutes and at a minimum be case hardened materials.

It is not skimpily a matter of using the correct armor, it is also a matter of using the proper archers kit.

I find little reason to doubt that the war bow was driving improvements in armor and materials to a point. Otherwise there was little reason to go to the added expense for armor just as the English demand for yew resulted in imports from ever further a field.

In other words, you find a lot of faults in the test procedure too ~D

One interesting tidbit is that plate ended up being cheaper than mail. Maybe the Black Death did its bit to accelerate armour development too. Either way, I think Italian armourers worried more about crossbows than bows, if missile weapons was the reason for a change.

Not the procedures only the materials as tested And armor was never proof against crossbows.

The procedures used were those of the NIJ for testing modern body armor. They should be equally as good testing a bow or a .50 cal firearm. His actual tests of weapon and materials were where I find fault.

The physics of the bows may be different. I would not except a test on armor using a .22 cal. to simulate 30 cal. Testing the armor as worn because it is an assembly. We also have relative data on how components stand up using lesser weapons. The full assembly needs to be tested to assess its relative effectiveness. In the test in question, the author says he used the under padding but a full assembly of complete armor would be a more reliable gage. Also the bows should be of military standard with draw weights similar to the estimated original draw weights of the Mary Rose bows.

Crossbows had been in use even before this time, seemingly without spurring on a lot of development. A mounted man need worry about only one or two volleys of crossbow bolts from the time he came into range and the time he completed his charge.

The only advantage the war bow/longbow ever had was rate of fire. At the beginning of the era we find most knights using chain armor with unbarded horses. By the end knights are heavily armored with plate and horses are fully barded. Also Europe had gone from have vast quantities of yew to a point to were they were nearly exhausted.

Armor may possibly have developed at the same pace but England spent vast sums over the years and passed laws to ensure it had ample bowmen, bows, and arrow stocks. It was either the greatest boondoggle in history or the history of an effective weapons system that, for a time, changed the way wars were fought. Either way a definitive answer is needed.

Of course there will always be some who will not except the outcome no matter how it turns out.

I don't know why you think the bow suddenly is supposed to be have been a boondoggle? Warbows were comparable in power to strong one-foot crossbows. Good protection was always important against such missile weapons. We see a gradual increase in armour protection (like coat of plates from around mid 13th century) before the English appeared with large numbers of archers, and same thing for barded horses.

All this has little to do with the flawed test: bad armour and a non-historical arrowhead, with the needle bodkin as the winner against plate being the prime example of a suspect result (they have a tendency to bend in other tests)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

I

All this has little to do with the flawed test: bad armour and a non-historical arrowhead, with the needle bodkin as the winner against plate being the prime example of a suspect result (they have a tendency to bend in other tests)

---

Explain?


If regulations required steel or at a minimum case hardened points even if we have not discovered on it does not make them non-historical. It means that either case hardening has corroded away and left only the iron or that we uncovered evidence of cheating on the standards. It does not alter the standards.

Steel and case hardened iron rust quicker. Many of the swords we find in the ground are only iron. Does this mean they didn’t harden their swords? They would be useless. in battle. What it means is that the hardening is not in evidence because it rusted away.

The regulations does not tell us the types of arrowheads they used. http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...ing-arrowheads It is my understanding that they don't have that many arrowheads to go by, but apparently no needle bodkins have been found from 15th century and after. If we then go by the large numbers of crossbow bolts found, then it is the short stocky types that is the most common. Since plate became the common type of armour, the needle type should have found more use if it was so good against it.

A much better test would be the Defense Academy warbow trials http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00005 that shows Lozenge and short bodkins being better. The test does have its flaws with the arrowheads being too hard and the armour at the lower end of what it should be, but at least the authors acknowledge it. The needle type is simply too fragile when the armour gets too thick or the bow too strong, and it is quite likely that the angle of impact has to be very good or it is useless. (My Skydrive is a mess so I forgot about that test, otherwise I would have posted it earlier, sorry)

Huh, and here was me wondering why the War of the Roses game's bodkin only had a bonus to drop off reduction instead of armour penetration.

Also seems to be putting a bit of a crimp in my memories of Bernard Cornwell's "Azincort", makes me wonder if the English shouldn't have bothered waiting for the knights to get close before switching to bodkins.

Anyroad back on topic.

This is why some people should'nt have the vote. I think they're called the hard of thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-...layer_embedded

No, IA. That's an example of why they should have the vote.

If you believe they are "hard of thinking", it is your democratic duty to correct and enlighten them(well, their english equivalents). That we do such things is the reason why democracy is so well-functioning.

I vote for the Queen. http://www.avolites.com/avo/jokes/queen.htm
These boys have it totally hosed up.

My English is better than half the people they interviewed :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, IA. That's an example of why they should have the vote.

If you believe they are "hard of thinking", it is your democratic duty to correct and enlighten them(well, their english equivalents). That we do such things is the reason why democracy is so well-functioning.

---

Well that guy did his best but there's no helping some folks. They disagreed with everything when they thought it was Romney but then did a volt-face when it was disclosed that it was Obamas' policies after all.

Politicians, the enemy of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well that guy did his best but there's no helping some folks. They disagreed with everything when they thought it was Romney but then did a volt-face when it was disclosed that it was Obamas' policies after all.

Politicians, the enemy of the people.

---

Now this post is what I consider an argument against democracy:

People give up instantly. "Hard work? Persistance? Things taking a long time? Pfft! Give me my instant reward RIGHT NOW or piss off!"


If you can't teach people, you haven't tried hard enough. Try again. And again. Or if you'd rather have instant pleasure, well, there's an abundance of would-be dictators ready to fill your needs for a month before drastically lowering your standard of living, botching your infrastructure and bring general ruin to you and those you know. Have fun with it, I'm going to stick with the long road of democracy instead, thankyouverymuch.

That was raw tribalism, nothing to do with democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Anyroad back on topic.

This is why some people should'nt have the vote. I think they're called the hard of thinking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts&feature=player_embedded

---

I knew about most of those things on some level; but then again I usually skim over world news at least once a week and I have a good memory for things (at least for things that are totally irrelevant for my own life)

I suppose that those issues are not featured prominently in the public debate because republicans generally don't disagree with them, or at least don't want to appear "softer" than Obama. The democrats would be mostly silent on in it because he's their incumbent. I've got to give credit to the interviewer for raising awareness, in such an unconventional way.

I'm genuinely surprised that you seriously think limited suffrage is worth considering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

That was raw tribalism, nothing to do with democracy.

---

....and the point is that democracy both incentivises and requires you to enlighten those you feel are "not democratic enough".

You need them to wise up for democracy to work. And if you don't do it, you will suffer personally through sub-optimal government.

As Monty would say, GET ON WITH IT!