One interesting and somewhat relevant piece of information: Humfrey Barwick emphasized that arrows needed to be "cleane and smooth", not rusty, in order to penetrate "doublets". *Againe, whereas it is sette downe in the same place, that the arrowe heades beeinge rustie, is the cause that woundes giuen by the same will not heale, whereby some will imagine, that it is for the beif to haue their arrow heades rustie.* *But truelie I neuer did see any archer in the warres, that had any other then such rustie arrowe heades: and besides I did not at any time see, anie of those archers goe about to mende them, and to make them cleane and smooth, that thereby the same might the better enter through the doubletes, or garmentes of theyr enemies: for by common reason and dailie proofe, any thinge that is rustie, be it Bodkin or Dagger, or arrowe heade, it will not with great force enter through any meane thing if it were but a meanely bumbasted doblet.* So, from this, it seems that in the second half of the 16th century arrowheads weren't sharpened or waxed prior to going into stores, and the often conscripted archers either didn't know to sharpen them or didn't care to. I find it hard to believe that 14th and 15th century archers didn't sharpen their arrowheads, though, given that the LM16/M4 seems to be descended from the LM13 and both were used against opponents who made heavy use of textile armour (especially the Scots). I look forward to seeing how the mail fares against these!
Thanks and no thanks. I find this extremely frustrating, because I know of know other period source that discusses this sort of thing, and he specifically says they should be clean and smooth to penetrate better but that people didn't bother. Now this is from a period when the military use of the bow was massively falling away, so maybe people didn't bother, but of course, we don't know; pure conjecture on my part. I do tend to agree though that I simply can't imagine people not sharpening their arrows as a displacement activity the night before if for no other reason, so I don't know the importance or truth of this account too the 14th or 15thC. It is just really frustrating that a written piece of evidence completely contradicts common sense and that the author even says that. Also really, really interesting that they seemed to know rusty heads caused more infection. That also is big news to me.
@@tods_workshop I wonder if, given the English bowmen were supplied with arrows by the king on campaign from the baggage train, they might if wise/diligent sharpen the sheaf(24 arrows) issued in hand overnight, but would of course just shoot & use the sheaves issued during a battle. The majority issued might have been mostly bodkins as they were cheaper to make, stored more compactly taking less space in barrels & best for armour penetration. They wouldn't take an edge with squared heads like broadhead types such as the type 16. Probably punch through mail well but less effective v gambesons. Hunters, usually using their own arrows, might more likely hone their arrows beforehand. But I agree the "press" at the time was very shoddy! That's ancient/medieval history for you.
But then we have sources saying the opposite though. "Robert Mildenhall brought back 7,000 arrows from Brittany, the heads of which had to be cleaned and which had to be bound in sheaves (Adam atte Kirk and nine of his colleagues were employed for six days to *clean, oil* and bind the arrowheads at 3d. a day)" Also, rusty doesn't necessarily mean dull. An arrowhead can be sharp along its edge while at the same time being rusty everywhere else. In fact, most of my arrowheads are to a degree. Tod: Rusty arrowheads do not cause tetanus, but they often harbor clostridium tetani, the bacteria causing tetanus. It's found in dirt and soil etc. This in turn can lead to sepsis and organ failure. We have complaints against the English for using poisoned arrows when they probably only had soil on them from previous engagements, practice, skirmishes, chevauchée etc.
From Friar John of Plano Carpini's writings on the Mongols: "The heads of their arrows are exceedingly sharp, cutting both ways like a two-edged sword, and they always carry a file in their quivers to sharpen their arrowheads." " When they make their arrowheads, they must, according to the Tartars’ custom, dip them red-hot into salt water, that they may be strong enough to pierce the enemies’ armour." So the Mongols were recorded in the 1280s hardening and sharpening arrowheads at least.
my child, why don't you quote another place from this "source" - where the steppes are described as flat as a table and the notorious Mongols transport their tents a hundred meters in diameter on appropriate-sized watermelons, in which thousands of oxen are driven? What you quoted is an obvious fake or fiction, written at an unknown time, especially since there is a dispute-whether it is Ribuk, or Plano Carpini, or whether they are the same person. Besides, why would the king of the Mongols accept an incomprehensible visitor who did not bring him worthy gifts?
This sounds a bit like a damascus steel type legend...Saline quenching makes most steel too hard to be "strong" and a file would skate off something that hard without sharpening it. The steel would have to be quenched then tempered to make it useable or it would shatter on impact...I doubt anyone really had the time to do that with every arrow head.
"Time for another shameless add I'm afraid." I cannot speak for others Tod but I actually enjoy these, for lack of a better word, adds. I say that because I see them as cool displays of craftsmanship. You are not showing us a shaving kit or selling us something to design web pages :D You are showing your own creations and they are very much relevant to the channel and subject. So do not apologize and keep showing these amazing pieces :)
Indeed. I've been enjoying going back to watch the old videos of Tod going through the different knives he makes a second time. I just love hearing about the history of items, and appreciating the level of detail he puts into them.
Your ads are fine, Todd. Interesting to see what you're made, sensible to support your channel & businesses. And WAYYY better than "hay everyone, have you tried RAID SHADOWLEGENDS? Because I totally have! I play it everrrrry day!".
I recall a bow hunter once telling me he would test his arrows by shaving a bit of hair off his arm. He believed it was inhumane to hunt with a dull arrow.
@@masterpython That is true but the issue here is that projectiles like arrows carry limited energy and inertia, so a duller arrow head has to expend more energy to break through the tissue.
Thinking of wax by the way, wouldn't wax protect the arrows while transporting? Could be more important than increased penetration. As you say, arrows may spend moths or even years in transport and storage before they saw use.
Wax would indeed protect an iron or steel arrowhead from rust when it got damp. Flip side, a rusty arrowhead would not penetrate as well, but would tend to make a very nasty infection with even a shallow wound. I've heard that before modern antibiotics battlefield infections could be as much of a threat as the direct wound.
@@hanelyp1 Being more likely to wound is much better than being more likely to kill but less likely to wound. As long as you get the guy out of the fight, it doesn't matter what happens.
@@hanelyp1 Rust causing infection is actually a myth. Rusty metal on farms tends to pick up animal diseases, including tetanus. But rust itself is no more infective than iron. A galvanized nail in good condition, thrown into a cattle feed lot, is about as likely to give you a disease. That said, a rusty nail, out in a field... better not risk it. Arrows have a good chance of causing infections without rust, just because the enemy's body, clothes, and the arrow, aren't likely cleaned.
Makes sense as corrosion is something which can cause a fair amount of edge holding to be lost if already sharp and would not be very good for the socket and shaft either if it swells. Plus back then it really was part of a process I guess which we'd consider labour intensive dipping things in oil or giving them some wax, but for old timey people it was just another chore to throw on any idlers around the place to give them something to do.
@@Sibula Wax or no wax, the probability of an infection were probably high, given the medical advancement of the time. Re-sharpening hundreds of thousands of arrows before a major battle sounds a bit impractical to me. Also, sharpening to perfect razor sharpness is time consuming. I would be better to give them a quite sharp edge, dunk the head in molten wax and store them in a barrel or waxed animal skin.
Just want to leave a comment for the algorithm, and to say that these are some of my favorite videos on TH-cam. There's a tremendous amount of thought and preparation that goes into them, and I think everyone here respects that! Beautiful work.
I see another good reason to wear the mail over the gambeson: I don't want it next to my skin, pinching through the cloth and marking me if I receive a glancing hit from a blunt weapon...
@@ephillips2008 Well, I tried both that and getting up from a hot sack in a hot tent and donning a chainmail who was already basking in the sun... definitely not pleasant.
My personal opinion is, that it depended on the kind of battle and enemy. Also because gambeson and chainmail were not cheap. People back then had most likely the same thoughts as we have today. Wear your gear befitting the occasion. Does the enemy have a lot of archers? Yeah?: I might take the pinch on my skin, over an arrow stuck in my side. The Enemy does not have a lot of archers?: My gambeson was a little too expensive to have it damaged by melee weaponry. No need to expose it to sharp edges. And in general it might have also been just a preference. We all weigh our life and money differently.
@@4Curses I beg to differ, for various reasons: first, a decent enemy does what he can to conceal the quantity and kind of its forces, so it wouldn't be cautious to renounce to a protection cause you assume what you'll be facing. Second, you try to wear all the protections you've got, since your life is more important than your belongings, and back then even a scratch from a dirty weapon could be fatal if not properly treated. It's like saying "oh, no need to wear a helmet, I'll use the motorbike in town at 50 kph at most, if I fall it would get scratched". I think that the kind of protective gear one would use was mostly dictated by cost and availability. In northern Italy campaigns, poor conscripted people often had rigid armor made of canvas sacs coated with pitch. They couldn't remove those for weeks, and water mixed with vinegar was poured trough the neck opening to fight the infection in sores and the smell. If you could afford both gambeson and chainmail, you could also afford to have someone fix the rings and stitch the cuts.
I don't agree that the vax was less exciting, you say it goes 16-17 cm in, contra 15 cm, that is an 6,7-13,3% difference in penetration (mind you the board behind it), by just adding vax you have improved the basic penetrating capability of the arrow with around 10% on average (on a sample of 1, ofc if you make it more tests we get a better more correct idea). 10% is remarkable, for just adding a bit of vax to the arrow, with the added benefit of the vax likely protecting the arrow (and sharpness) ever so slightly during transport/storage. In general these videos are fantastic, but I think this one shows the importance of what can be done by going just that little extra and sharpening the arrows. This channel really is a treasure!
I feel he should've tested waxing the arrow for the weaker bows that didn't quite penetrate rather than the one that already punched through, maybe he'd see some clearer difference then.
I think wax makes a difference with hard materials to make it slide better, similar to how you grease a drill to avoid it getting stuck. Gambeson does not grip the same way, thus grease has not as much effect on the friction department. But if you want to go through metal on top that wax may reduce blunting by lessening the work applied to the arrowhead from the metal and leaving it sharper once it hits the cloth.
And he himself also said that even an inch can make quite a difference. By that logic, even that little bit of extra penetration from the grease and wax is significant.
I'm glad you made that initial point about why the mail goes on the outside. Previously you did a video where you tried the various types of armor piercing arrows against the various types of armor and kind of determined that anti-mail and anti-plate arrowheads didn't do well against gambesons. Since then I was wondering, 'so why didn't they put the gambeson layer *over* the mail?' This does a good job of answering it. I look forward to the next video on the subject.
As a complete novice I can imagine arrow sharpening and waxing as a night-before-the-battle activity. Like something you might do in what is otherwise downtime. It really feels like something that could be done I'm the field or with little infrastructure or specialist training.
Considering they would later go on to cast their own lead shot for muskets in the field, it's very plausible. a really nice detail. And one where some armies mightn't bother with the expense of giving everyone wax.
Even simpler, I expect the waxing of arrowheads might have been standard practice just to prevent corrosion. The performance effect might be a an unintended secondary effect.
@@XCodes Fair enough. I was thinking of bee's wax, but you're correct that would be quite affordable. I expect it's still an expense, since people did have a lot of uses for lard and wax... but quite an affordable one yeah. Thanks for the comment.
13:09 "Been a bit of a long one this time." Tod, I don't think any of us think 13:28 is long. In fact, I imagine most of would be quite excited to watch an hour of you shooting differently configured arrows at different speeds at different armor. Can't wait for the next one.
It's really cool that you come up with theoretical ideas, and dive right into testing them. Best example of the scientific method. And most entertaining as well. Thanks Tod!
It's one thing to sit through a mobile game ad in the middle of a completely unrelated video, but seeing YOUR products that YOU make that are incredibly relevant to the channel and the video is nothing but a joy to watch. Your products are amazing and they deserve more publicity. I really do want to buy one sometime- I'm a big fan of daggers. Hopefully I'll get to soon.
As a semi pro flintnapper and traditional bow hunter, the final edge is what is doing all the work. As we now know something small or nerow and sharp is going to go much further. But what I want to know is what kind of sharp? Razor sharp Gunther barded or needle hohokum point going to do more work? Wide Elko eared, or tiny piaute triangle? I know Todd doesn't do flint but imagine the iron equivalent type tests.
And what about what an arrow does to another arrow? I want to see that sharp arrow Robinhood another arrow! What weight of bow do you need to split another arrow?
That should be easily possible. Sharpen one of the arrows to razor sharpness, the best he can manage, and compare. It'd be a valuable point of data, to help us grasp at the upper limit for penetration. Help us to work out whether they were making them razor sharp, for example.
@@evilcanofdrpepper mythbusters tesded it in some video if i remember correctly, and wood fibers are not perfectly straight so it always ended splitting like 3/4 of an arrow and then the arrow left on the side
Shameless adds are perfectly fine. I wish I could support you directly but I can't so I like that you promote your products where many people can see it. Your videos are great and anything that supports them is great for everyone that appreciates them
Sharpening your own arrows as a medieval archer: If you are part of a formation of archers you might have started with your own arrows, but in a lengthy battle runners - like the powder monkeys in the age of sail - would supply you with arrows, since you would spend a lot of arrows in minutes. On the other hand if you were a skirmisher it's quite likely that spending the time to sharpen 50-100 arrows would be worth it. As you wouldn't have runners to bring you more arrows and you would be engaging specific target.
One of those things that you don't think to test but when you do, it's a case of "Well, duh! Of course that works" Really looking forward to the mail tests. Add my voice to the "Never apologise for showcasing your own products, they're awesome" chorus.
Very interesting! Nearing the end of the video I was asking myself what wax would do in this sort of application, myself thinking that it would not matter that much since you are not trying to lubricate the arrow to squeeze through a rigid object, the mechanics here are, I think, cutting the fibers. I know that flak jackets, which are essentially a modern gambeson, can pretty readily stop blunt-nosed pistol projectiles. But they reeeally don't like those hunting three-bladed razor arrows. Even if the energies involved are much more favourable to the pistol, it is much easier to cut the fiber than to snap it! Great video!
Yeah, I’m guessing they sharpened. Also, my guess is the target medium is reducing the results. It is clearly more effective to shoot sharpened arrows, as a qualitative measurement of “it does more” but the stop medium with the hard backing is shortening the travel. Basically there isn’t enough limit band in that medium to be able to say “it’s twice as effective” or a 1/3 more effective. Still very telling.
I would guess it heavily depended on the context. Were they ordered in bulk, was there preparation time, did the army get enough of them... was there any money? Was there any time? Or did you need your arrow stocks replenished quickly. Were you a war archer and your quartermaster might not give much of rat's ass about a lowly soldier or were you a hunter who kinda cared for every arrow individually because you bought them yourself? There may be a lot more variation in there given that professional logistics, standardization and procurement arrived several centuries later due to the necessities of professional gunpowder armies.
Thanks Curt, I think you are right and yes I should have not had the back board but thicker medium - one to remember next time, but yes as you say very telling, but I think the true story of this will be told in the mail vid
Good point about the backboard. Still enough of a clear effect to show what's being tested, just not for saying "sharpened are 47.3% more effective" or something silly like that. Could be interesting once everything's said and done to run a test of the ideal arrow/armor configs against a lump of ballistic gel or ham, but the setup's clearly going to be more time-consuming.
Absolutely love the video! I always look forward to your next release. I usually do not comment, I prefer just to watch and read others thoughts, but this time I have a thought of my own. I noticed, and it could just be coincidence, that the first arrow of most groups of three would penetrate the least and the following two would penetrate markedly deeper. Since your gambeson sample is fastened at the four corners, and loose in the middle, is it possible the first shot has to absorb the "sponge" in material movement thus causing less penetration, And once the first arrow has pinned the sample tighter to the backdrop the proceeding arrows have less resistance as they penetrate? A taut fabric definitely cuts easier. And if this is a possibility, it could be the reason your greased arrow didn't show the results you were expecting, since it was the first arrow absorbing the slack.
So I have now watched all of your "arrow vs. armour" and all of the "lock down longbow" videos (so far) and these are some of my conclusions about the arrow warhead types Todd. Type 16 - The general-purpose (GP) military warhead type. A development of the earliest barbed arrow heads types. When sharpened and waxed provides good "effects" against a wide variety of target types. Useful against unarmoured and fabric armoured enemies and their horses. Reduced effects against mail and plate armoured targets. Ring mail likely "catches" the wide arrowhead and reduces it velocity, much reducing "after armour" effects on the target. Type 7 - Long Bodkin. Early armour-piercing (AP) warhead type. I call this the "Mail-Buster". A further development of Type 16. I think this was developed to defeat a combination of ring mail and heavy gambeson, with some effects against "coat of plate" style armour. Its shape is designed to "self-centre" when striking ring mail and bursts or splits the individual rings open allowing the arrowhead to keep its velocity and penetrating power so it can pass through the gambeson. Reduced effects against plate as the tip is easily malformed and distorted and this causes lack of "bite" and a high deflection rate. Type 9 - Plate cutter. Short bodkin. Late armour piercing type. Development of Type 9. Designed in response to widespread proliferation of plate armour on the battlefield. Reduced tip length reduces deflection and malformation chance and the broader cross-section allows it to maintain its shape and transfer more energy to armour surfaces. Looking forward to your tests against mail-gambeson combo to see if the conclusions about Type 16 and Type 7 heads is correct. :)
Good summary. And I'll add something. Our ancestors were not idiots. They undoubtedly did tests on their arrows, got as much intelligence as they could on their opposition equipment, and went into the field as prepared as they could be.
Waxing the arrows would also be interesting to see in the mail over or under gambeson video, you say it wasn't much extra penetration but each centimetre counts when it's into a body
Just want to say, I love the fact you're using multiple weight equivalents now. It has been one of my biggest grains of salt with these is that we really only get data from a high weight bow, at short range, shooting dead on.
@@tods_workshop Well, the effort is appreciated! I'm sure there's a million variables to be tested if there were the time, and sadly I'm also sure that's not the case.
I have to wonder if the orientation of the weave vs arrow head affects penetration. Since most cloth is woven at 90° striking with the arrow at 0 or 90 will only have to cut half as much fabric as a 45° impact. Modern soft body armor is made with random strand orientation for this very reason.
Since you are layering you can mix up the orientation of the fibers in the layers. It might make it harder to sew. Not sure if anyone ever did it historically but felt was used in armor.
@@masterpython I don't know about later cloth armours but I could swear I read somewhere that the ancient greeks did just that. Rotated the layers of fabric before gluing and stitching them together.
@@MrBottlecapBill that was one of the variables tested by Professor Aldrete and his team, although they didn't find any improvement by doing it. The gluing of the armour is a bit of a re-enactorism with no supporting evidence in any culture or style of textile armour we have any record of. I know Sean Manning is preparing to publish a paper on the subject that breaks down how the original idea of glued armour came to be and why it's based on incorrect information, and I think it's being published this year.
@@masterpython it's certainly possible, but given that cloth is woven "square" the trimming process would be very wasteful. Turning the material 45° would result in large corners bring cut off. Perhaps, if they recognized this at all, the more wealthy could afford to pay for it, but I doubt a Lord would pay extra for his rank and file troops.
@@russelldavis1359 I estimate that for about 230-310pounds, about the weight they bench in kilos. But because they are not trained to draw bows, it would be far less for the first few times until their nervous system learn how to draw it properly. The key is the neuro-muscular connection.
@@russelldavis1359 not much; their muscles aren’t formed for that. They are also severely; like actually severely hampered in every single flexible maneuver. I bet they could by strength alone pull some good ones but i bet they couldnt come close to joe gibbs
Archery is way different to any standard weightlifting or calisthenics movement. It takes years to build up the tendon strength necessary to draw heavy bows, and very specific back muscles that aren't very easily targeted in the gym. Joe Gibbs is a phenomenal athlete, he has drawn #210 @ 30" (a full draw), and a 29" draw at #220. Those numbers are around 125% of his bodyweight. Most beginner archers will typically have a draw strength that is at best 50% of their bodyweight. So we might expect that Eddie hall will be capable of drawing #170-180. Brian Shaw might be capable of drawing #200. Just imagine how heavy of a bow these men could shoot after a few years of training. They would probably blow the current Guinness record out of the water.
This channel could be filled with Tod's works for sales and the only complaint I'd have is not enough money to buy them. 😊 Oh... The real lesson from the lockdown Longview series is: Avoid getting hit by arrows. 😄
Even if they were shipped bulk unsharpened, you could definitely expect the archers to spend their evenings maintaining both bows and arrows, just as all soldiers would with their swords, especially on the evening before a battle. Also while waiting in formation before the battle starts they would be quietly checking their arrows and giving them a little extra edge with a pocket grindstone. And of course, giving each arrow a preliminary sharpen on a treadle powered grindstone in the forge would take time, but not that much time, something for the apprentices to do.
I think I was facing the prospect of thousands of large angry Frenchmen trying to cut important bits off me in the morning, I'd be sharpening everything I could get my hands on. Arrowheads, bollock dagger, even the tips of my pointy shoes. I imagine while on campaign there was a lot of time spent waiting worrying about whether you're going to die and doing all you can to avoid that.
@@timharris3292 The only question is if you would do it even after whole days of marching, setting camps, gathering wood, preparing meals et cetera. I honestly can imagine myself going "Nah, it's good enough" in such a situation and leave those arrowheads in a state they were issued to me. On top of that, there is an issue of transporting them. I doubt that archers had all those arrows "on them". Most remained in wagons and were most likely issued in bigger numbers right before the battle. But you still have to reach the place the battle will take place, set the camp, prepare some field fortifications, and so on. How much time will be left for sharpening the arrows?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 All true, but when it comes to pitched battles, they could be set up hours before the fighting actually started, time enough to see that your ready quivers were sharp at the very least, Anyway a soldiers camp would include all manner of tradesmen including farriers, blacksmiths and fletchers. All depends on how hard-pressed your army is really, if they had time they'd do it, otherwise they'd rely on the grindstone sharpen done at the fletchers forge. Sharp enough to cut is all that is needed.
I have been so very impressed by your series of scientific tests on Armour of various types against your variety of arrows. I did some ad hoc tests back when I was doing recreation and making Armour, but nothing like you and your friends have done. The simple conclusion i came to was "steel good, soft not so much ", as if that wasn't obvious enough. However,,as you've shown, it's àll relattive, with many variables to consider. I very much appreciate your videos, as do many others, and look forward to more. Thanks for entertainment and knowledge
Being a bow hunter, a sharp head is essential. In my imagination the archers were always sharpening their arrows the night before a battle if possible.
@@hanelyp1 totally agree. Heck a bow hunter would probably shoot fewer arrows at game in the course of of his career than many war archers shot in a single battle.
Just seen this channel over on idw.community. Very interesting! This gentleman is a teacher of history, physics, metallurgy/woodworking, armory/weaponry and the general use of science to resolve theory. Kids in Canada (14 yrs) used to have to study and pass a course called "Hunter Training and Survival", a basic gunsmithing class, archery class, and a 3-day outdoor winter survival camp-out...a lean-to in the middle of February with a fire to keep warm and whatever food you could hike in 5 miles with. Imagine taking classes in middle school from this man? Invaluable knowledge and skill acquisition! The school drop-out rate would likely be eliminated. ;)
2cm could be a significant difference for the waxed arrow. It's all about the sample size, the statistics could work out the difference significance if you shot like 25 of each at least, you could test your hypothesis rigorously! I'd be happy to help with the maths Tod, just requires a bit of commitment to a bigger sample size.
Yes it is enough to count and a bigger sample size would be great, but I just don't have time or resources for that, but hopefully these will indicate the direction of thought if not the actual answer
I was asking for that for months. Not for Tod deadlifting but invite Eddie - or some other strongman - to see what would be the limits for a soldier like them.
@@MollymaukT for sure - the video will be called "Can WSM Eddie Hall shoot a Medieval Longbow" with all the rhetoric and hyperbole. But it would still be a great vid I just hope Eddie doesn't break one of Joe's bows 😬
Perfect sponsor ;). Love your work and videos. Sharpness is an interesting idea so many myths and so little good evidence. Even this 3 sample is more than most people will argue for hours over.
Entire Strongman is problematic from the safety standpoint, I don't think crossbows are any more dangerous than holding two huge pillars that are falling down in opposite directions.
That would probably depend heavily on at least 3 factors. 1. What cloth is being used? Wool and linen could behave quite differently. 2. How long it's wet. 3. How is it being cared for? Wax or oil added to the cloth would reduce water's impact quite a bit. I can see a lot of oil/wax transfer from metal armor or used on the gambeson intentionally for water proofing.
I do not know what wet gambeson would do for you protection wise, but i suspect you would go to great lengts to avoid it. This is because gambeson is constructed in such a way that i belive it can hold quite alot of water, resulting in maybe as much as three times the weight. In short, the water must add a great deal of protection to offset the added weight, and while it may offer some, i highly doubt it to be worth while. (pardon my grammars, english is not my native language)
I have seen tests to compare sharpened obsidian arrowheads with simple pointy wood tips. The penetration was exactly the same, but since death comes from bleeding out (most often I guess) the point which cuts more creates more "damage" and the taget bleeds out faster. Of course this was against target animals without armor.
My speculation would be not really. Theres a lot of momentum going forward, and moving fast. In theory, yes it would, but in practice I doubt you could notice
There are modern broadheads with bevel sharpened blades that are simulator to what you are asking about. You have to have the bevel in the same direction as the fetching so the head cuts with the spin. They are used against animals with thick bones as this head style splits bone instead of trying to cut through them. It's very effective.
Yes, "chisel" sharpened broadheads are known for their "S" shaped wound channel. They torque and spin when they enter the animal due to only having one bevel on each side of the head.
I love these experiments, Tod. Thank you for taking the time to test these things that people like us wonder about but don't have the resources to find out the answers. Thank you thank you, sir!
Now I want you to invite Eddie Hall and make him span a 350lbs crossbow with one finger. I demand it. I can't remember if you mentionned it in previous videos, but I always wanted to ask: what's the spine/grain (just the wooden shaft) of the arrows you use for the armour tests?
Tod should make one of those ancient Chinese crossbows with long powerstrokes and make Eddie Hall span them because they were meant to be spanned by muscle power. The ancient Han era crossbows had a median draw weight of 387 lb (with a powerstroke of maybe 18-20 inches) and the heaviest ancient personnel crossbows supposedly went up to the 600s-700s lbs. The heavier ones that weren't mechanically drawn light field artillery crossbows were supposedly drawn while lying in a fetal position and pushing against the crossbow with your feet on the prod like doing a leg press-like maneuver. The mechanically drawn light field artillery crossbows (eg. winches and/or with multiple people) were supposed to be in the 5000s lb draw weight so Eddie Hall wouldn't be able to draw that one.
@@ScottKenny1978 Unfortunately, that movie was rather inaccurate because they didn't even use real crossbows. In that movie, the soldiers had to hold the crossbows for extended times with their hands and feet because they were actually using bows without a cocking & locking mechanism. They also portrayed the soldiers as shooting the crossbows while in fetal position, when in reality, they would've only loaded the crossbow in a fetal position (or while standing up for lower draw weights) and then shot the crossbow in a normal upright position.
Tod, please don't declare your ads as shameless. They are not, how else would everyone here know, that we too could play with toys as awesome as yours? Just because I can't afford one of your bows doesn't mean I wouln't if I could. And I wouln't have known I could without you informing me =)
Hi it’s Neil from Neils sofa here. Good to see you back Tod. Made a bodkin( rough) that went through an inch of pine at 100 meters, Reflex bow made by Yamaha . Strangely satisfying! Nice vid
We see considerable sharpness in Hungarian kite-shaped arrowheads, which hit more or less like chisels. They're made with very clear and careful edges.
Tod, can you test different daggers how well they penetrate fabric? Rondel daggers, stilleto daggers, "normal" double edged daggers,... Which dagger is best for fabric, chainmail+fabric, plate armor?
Found your channel a few months back and man do I wish I had found it sooner. Quality content here, very much appreciate all the effort your put into it. Keep it up!
The creator - I love the comments in this channel because they are so well moderated, polite and considered and allow us all to learn and discuss even if we have different opinions. Countries too have different laws, which we could discuss, but why not do so in a measured and polite way rather than start with something like this? There is no need. You also may have learned something about this chaps country but as I suspect he will not reply, you have now lost that opportunity
I did some foamsport years ago. I decided to wear my new chainmail on a hot day, so I wore the mail without anything underneath. I took one or two good shots to that armor, and decided 'never again' without a gambeson, or something thick, underneath. The force of even a foam sword knocking metal rings into your skin at high speeds is painful, and that's before you realize that those rings pinch, too! Todd, I say gambeson will go underneath, if only for that reason. Looking forward to the next one :)
I know this isn't really a question about the content of the vid, and more of a question about the shameless ad... So you used the goats foot lever to cock the crossbow. I was thinking, was there any record in history where the goats foot lever was attached on the underside of the crossbow, and it was cocked sort of like a lever action rifle?
There were crossbows whith built in lever where whole mechanism moves forward to engage string. Tod made replica: th-cam.com/video/M0m5udFoPnA/w-d-xo.html I know of more with same mechanism but they are bullet crossbows (stonebows): emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=43473&viewType=detailView emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=43470&viewType=detailView
My prediction for the next video is that the needle heads will loose quite a bit of effectiveness against mail worn underneath gambeson. Love the series, keep up the great work Tod!
Todd, I recommend using the word "hypothesis" instead of theory, this is more correct, and reduces peoples interpretation of the word "theory" as something untested and unproven.
Fascinating. That double-layer fabric armor could potentially turn an arrow at all is amazing on its own. Makes me wonder if maybe some would wear fabric under AND over the maille.
Thinking on the role of steel in the arrowhead, I think it would help penetrate the Maille as well. The blunting effect to the arrowhead would increase friction with the maille itself, by increasing the contact area as the head strapes through. A harder head would skid more easily against the softer metal. The sharp edges would offer a mechanical advantage to splitting the rings, concentrating force on two acute points. I wonder if you could test maille penetration with a press of some kind to get some hard numbers for splitting rings with different arrowheads as well as sharp vs blunt. THAT could be a cool series, and I bet we would learn a ton.
That makes sense, otherwise why should have anyone bothered with a Gambeson at all? You're not going to use something that doesn't work and actually encumbers you, would you?
Love the science you do. You have an idea, you research it, you form an idea, you test it, and you record it. I think the next question of the mail is how much energy does the arrow lose going though either layer. If the gambeson is on top, does that mean the arrow loses enough energy that it won't penetrate the mail underneath. Or does the gambeson not do enough? On the flip side does the mail dull the arrow and take out enough energy that it can't pass through the gambeson anymore. We already saw today that unsharpened arrows have difficulty with gambeson. If I had to guess I'd say the mail on top has a better chance since that's what we see in history and from today's test it makes the most sense. What I do know for sure is that I am excited for the next film.
I really like your research approach. Only looking at one parameter at a time and then beeing able to determine their importance in more complex situations
This leads me to have questions. A wine soaked gambeson (earlier video), would that alter the results? The pattern of mail used. 4in1, 8in2, would this impact the results? What about mail sandwiched between layers of gambeson. Not sure this was done in history but an interest thought. Love these videos.
There's not much of evidence of any other pattern of mail than 4 in 1 in Europe. Though "details" of maille as exact combination wire diameter, ring size, joint size etc. would definitely make huge difference. Just look at stuff like this mail collar made of very fine rings - looks almost like a sweater made of iron : i.pinimg.com/originals/af/c8/29/afc829f9769beb6b5d1c6d509a6e56b0.jpg Unfortunately, people like Isaac who are making anything resembling historical mail are still very rare, recreating something like this collar is a pipe dream right now. Especially without thousands of dollars to spend.
I reckon you're right about wearing your layers in the right order making a difference. If you can blunt the arrow head as it passes through the mail, you've removed the advantage that sharpening gave it - as well as removing a fair bit of force before it even reaches the gambeson. That's my prediction, anyway - will be interesting to see just how much of a difference it'll make. :-)
Another great video. I really enjoy your work. Most folks today have no idea about how things worked. We look back and look down on those ages but people are people and people are smart, and especially so when motivated to save their own skins. No one would wear a gambison if it did not work. Yet, we know it was cheap, common armor. Easy to mass produce, easy to procure, much lighter to wear. It was good. Also, sharp arrows, I can't recall the specifics but it is niggling at the back of my mind that there were some documents from the era that discuss the arrows, keeping there of, storage, and of course the sharpening. No, wait.. look I should read comments before commenting. There is one below. I know I've also read about it from European documents as well. But there it is.
Really hope you can test the difference sharpness and hardness makes with metal armour, after this experiment. Sharpness should help to concentrate the force for a penetration, and prevent skidding. A harder arrowhead in particular should make a huge difference.
I imagine the best combination of maille and gambeson would be both ways: some over the maille, so that the blunter arrows bunch up the material under them, making it way harder to pass in the gaps between maille and/or burst the rings as they have more material in their way and some under, of course, to prevent chafing, cushion the blows some more and protect against sharper arrows. I imagine the one over is especially useful against blunter, piercing type arrows that have more trouble with fabric, whilst the one under would be most useful against the slowed down/dulled down sharper, broader cutting arrows that have more trouble with the maille. That way, the armor is more than the sum of its parts, getting the best of both. Just my amateur guess, but I believe I've seen the same conclusion posted somewhere else as well (as a hypothesis rather than the result of an experiment*). I haven't gone through the sources as well, but I've seen several more experienced reenactors mention it was done historically. So take that with a grain of salt, it might make your gambeson harder anyways ;)
That's exactly the idea Middle Eastern "jazerant" or armor worn in Europe in later 13th and 14th century. Some lighter cloth armor worn beneath mail, and thicker, firmer one above. www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm Such combination was potent defense, on the other hand it was very thick and puffy, which was kinda taking away bigadvantage of a mail armor - the fact that it's perfectly flexible.
Absolutely loved this! Can’t wait for the next one. I remember a picture someone sent me. It was spot in a medieval stone wall where the archers supposedly sharpened their arrow heads. Turns out it might actually be true!
Gambeson info please: Coarse linen with cotton padding? Thickness under compression? Weave orientation? That was just a single or double gambeson back to back? Like the acknowledgement. David Jones name doesn't come up as often as it probably should. . His experiments were well documented and of much higher sample size than most. The mail sample you've aquired look superior to what was avaible to him, and your range of draw weights are a bonus. (I just hope that Isak's mail isn't puny 1.2 gauge stuff. Go thick or go home!) Appreciate how concise the video is. Maybe in future just throw the details in the description for all the real gangstas. Love it, And now the moment we've all been waiting for..
1:46 i respect your theory in terms of breaching armor but i believe steel heads has much less to do with the sharpness factor than simply pushing as much weight to the front of the arrow as possible and increasing the FOC ratio. two arrows of equal sharpness and differing FOC ratios will penetrate differently. I’ve done tons of experiments with FOC and found it alone makes an incredible difference with taking game. sharpness helps too but not as much as componential control over how the arrow is flying. its still in 3 dimensions so it has a horizontal and vertical component in flight, the purpose of dense metals up front is to eliminate the vertical component in flight, making it shoot like a dart rather than a javelin.
Hi Tod, It's interesting that there are parallels in this arrow vs mail/gamebeson scenario to a rifle bullet vs modern body armor (ceramic and kevlar). Modern hard body armor is effective because the ceramic acts as an abrasive on the striking bullet, causing significant deformation and fragmentation (similar to mail blunting or dulling a striking arrow). That deformed and fragmented bullet is then caught by the kevlar (like the blunted and dulled arrow is caught in the gambeson). If the order were to be reversed, the rifle bullet would pass through the kevlar without any trouble, and then deform/fragment through the ceramic and into the body. Just like how the arrow would pass easily through the gambeson, be blunted by the mail, and pass into the body. And for the same reason you would want to use a sharpened steel arrowhead in an attempt to reduce the deformation from the mail and increase penetration, bullets designed for defeating modern body armor include hardened steel and tungsten cores. The more things change, the more they stay the same ;) And great work as always. Cheers!
One interesting and somewhat relevant piece of information: Humfrey Barwick emphasized that arrows needed to be "cleane and smooth", not rusty, in order to penetrate "doublets".
*Againe, whereas it is sette downe in the same place, that the arrowe heades beeinge rustie, is the cause that woundes giuen by the same will not heale, whereby some will imagine, that it is for the beif to haue their arrow heades rustie.*
*But truelie I neuer did see any archer in the warres, that had any other then such rustie arrowe heades: and besides I did not at any time see, anie of those archers goe about to mende them, and to make them cleane and smooth, that thereby the same might the better enter through the doubletes, or garmentes of theyr enemies: for by common reason and dailie proofe, any thinge that is rustie, be it Bodkin or Dagger, or arrowe heade, it will not with great force enter through any meane thing if it were but a meanely bumbasted doblet.*
So, from this, it seems that in the second half of the 16th century arrowheads weren't sharpened or waxed prior to going into stores, and the often conscripted archers either didn't know to sharpen them or didn't care to.
I find it hard to believe that 14th and 15th century archers didn't sharpen their arrowheads, though, given that the LM16/M4 seems to be descended from the LM13 and both were used against opponents who made heavy use of textile armour (especially the Scots).
I look forward to seeing how the mail fares against these!
Thanks Jonathan. Tod here but can’t sign in for some reason. That is fantastic- thanks so much and very interesting indeed.
@@danilotodeschini6777 Glad I could be of use!
Thanks and no thanks. I find this extremely frustrating, because I know of know other period source that discusses this sort of thing, and he specifically says they should be clean and smooth to penetrate better but that people didn't bother. Now this is from a period when the military use of the bow was massively falling away, so maybe people didn't bother, but of course, we don't know; pure conjecture on my part. I do tend to agree though that I simply can't imagine people not sharpening their arrows as a displacement activity the night before if for no other reason, so I don't know the importance or truth of this account too the 14th or 15thC. It is just really frustrating that a written piece of evidence completely contradicts common sense and that the author even says that.
Also really, really interesting that they seemed to know rusty heads caused more infection. That also is big news to me.
@@tods_workshop I wonder if, given the English bowmen were supplied with arrows by the king on campaign from the baggage train, they might if wise/diligent sharpen the sheaf(24 arrows) issued in hand overnight, but would of course just shoot & use the sheaves issued during a battle. The majority issued might have been mostly bodkins as they were cheaper to make, stored more compactly taking less space in barrels & best for armour penetration. They wouldn't take an edge with squared heads like broadhead types such as the type 16. Probably punch through mail well but less effective v gambesons. Hunters, usually using their own arrows, might more likely hone their arrows beforehand.
But I agree the "press" at the time was very shoddy! That's ancient/medieval history for you.
But then we have sources saying the opposite though. "Robert
Mildenhall brought back 7,000 arrows from Brittany, the heads of which had to be cleaned and which had to be bound in sheaves (Adam atte Kirk and nine of his colleagues were employed for six days to *clean, oil* and bind the arrowheads at 3d. a day)"
Also, rusty doesn't necessarily mean dull. An arrowhead can be sharp along its edge while at the same time being rusty everywhere else. In fact, most of my arrowheads are to a degree.
Tod: Rusty arrowheads do not cause tetanus, but they often harbor clostridium tetani, the bacteria causing tetanus. It's found in dirt and soil etc. This in turn can lead to sepsis and organ failure. We have complaints against the English for using poisoned arrows when they probably only had soil on them from previous engagements, practice, skirmishes, chevauchée etc.
Never be ashamed to push your products, Todd. They’re top notch and you’ve every right to make a living.
This. Seriously. I'm always pleased to know about them.
Agreed. If it was cheap crap or basic merch that would be one thing, but Tod's stuff is AWESOME.
Definitely agree 👏🏻
Too right! Make a living plus all the GoPro casualties and arrow/armour replacements
Here here
From Friar John of Plano Carpini's writings on the Mongols:
"The heads of their arrows are exceedingly sharp, cutting both ways like a two-edged sword, and they always carry a file in their quivers to sharpen their arrowheads."
" When they make their arrowheads, they must, according to the Tartars’ custom, dip them red-hot into salt water, that they may be strong enough to pierce the enemies’ armour."
So the Mongols were recorded in the 1280s hardening and sharpening arrowheads at least.
THANK YOU
Very good source and example! Glad it wasn't buried under a million boring penetration jokes.
my child, why don't you quote another place from this "source" - where the steppes are described as flat as a table and the notorious Mongols transport their tents a hundred meters in diameter on appropriate-sized watermelons, in which thousands of oxen are driven? What you quoted is an obvious fake or fiction, written at an unknown time, especially since there is a dispute-whether it is Ribuk, or Plano Carpini, or whether they are the same person. Besides, why would the king of the Mongols accept an incomprehensible visitor who did not bring him worthy gifts?
I read that in Dan Carlin's voice.
This sounds a bit like a damascus steel type legend...Saline quenching makes most steel too hard to be "strong" and a file would skate off something that hard without sharpening it.
The steel would have to be quenched then tempered to make it useable or it would shatter on impact...I doubt anyone really had the time to do that with every arrow head.
"Time for another shameless add I'm afraid." I cannot speak for others Tod but I actually enjoy these, for lack of a better word, adds. I say that because I see them as cool displays of craftsmanship. You are not showing us a shaving kit or selling us something to design web pages :D You are showing your own creations and they are very much relevant to the channel and subject. So do not apologize and keep showing these amazing pieces :)
AMEN! Every other TH-cam channel is showing us War Path or VPN... Todd has a much better chance of getting me to visit his sponsor than they do!
Like Townsends. He shows his own wares, which are clearly of good quality.
Indeed. I've been enjoying going back to watch the old videos of Tod going through the different knives he makes a second time. I just love hearing about the history of items, and appreciating the level of detail he puts into them.
ad not add
it's ad
Your ads are fine, Todd. Interesting to see what you're made, sensible to support your channel & businesses. And WAYYY better than "hay everyone, have you tried RAID SHADOWLEGENDS? Because I totally have! I play it everrrrry day!".
I recall a bow hunter once telling me he would test his arrows by shaving a bit of hair off his arm. He believed it was inhumane to hunt with a dull arrow.
Yeah. Todd really should test shaving-sharp arrows in the future. To hunters, this point is obvious.
I test mine that way
Flesh is very different than cloth.
@@masterpython That is true but the issue here is that projectiles like arrows carry limited energy and inertia, so a duller arrow head has to expend more energy to break through the tissue.
I test my knives by shaving arm hair
I'd much rather see an ad for a crossbow from Todd's Workshop than another plug from Manscaped.
Thinking of wax by the way, wouldn't wax protect the arrows while transporting? Could be more important than increased penetration. As you say, arrows may spend moths or even years in transport and storage before they saw use.
Wax would indeed protect an iron or steel arrowhead from rust when it got damp. Flip side, a rusty arrowhead would not penetrate as well, but would tend to make a very nasty infection with even a shallow wound. I've heard that before modern antibiotics battlefield infections could be as much of a threat as the direct wound.
@@hanelyp1 Being more likely to wound is much better than being more likely to kill but less likely to wound. As long as you get the guy out of the fight, it doesn't matter what happens.
@@hanelyp1 Rust causing infection is actually a myth. Rusty metal on farms tends to pick up animal diseases, including tetanus. But rust itself is no more infective than iron. A galvanized nail in good condition, thrown into a cattle feed lot, is about as likely to give you a disease. That said, a rusty nail, out in a field... better not risk it.
Arrows have a good chance of causing infections without rust, just because the enemy's body, clothes, and the arrow, aren't likely cleaned.
Makes sense as corrosion is something which can cause a fair amount of edge holding to be lost if already sharp and would not be very good for the socket and shaft either if it swells.
Plus back then it really was part of a process I guess which we'd consider labour intensive dipping things in oil or giving them some wax, but for old timey people it was just another chore to throw on any idlers around the place to give them something to do.
@@Sibula Wax or no wax, the probability of an infection were probably high, given the medical advancement of the time. Re-sharpening hundreds of thousands of arrows before a major battle sounds a bit impractical to me. Also, sharpening to perfect razor sharpness is time consuming. I would be better to give them a quite sharp edge, dunk the head in molten wax and store them in a barrel or waxed animal skin.
Just want to leave a comment for the algorithm, and to say that these are some of my favorite videos on TH-cam. There's a tremendous amount of thought and preparation that goes into them, and I think everyone here respects that! Beautiful work.
Thanks
7:13 Tod's Workshop, where even the adds are bad ass. Love this channel.
I see another good reason to wear the mail over the gambeson: I don't want it next to my skin, pinching through the cloth and marking me if I receive a glancing hit from a blunt weapon...
I can imagion getting up early in the morning from a warm bed and not wanting to put cold metal on even if u have a shirt under it.
@@ephillips2008 Well, I tried both that and getting up from a hot sack in a hot tent and donning a chainmail who was already basking in the sun... definitely not pleasant.
Very true, but you would always wear some thickish garment under maille for this reason
My personal opinion is, that it depended on the kind of battle and enemy. Also because gambeson and chainmail were not cheap. People back then had most likely the same thoughts as we have today. Wear your gear befitting the occasion.
Does the enemy have a lot of archers? Yeah?: I might take the pinch on my skin, over an arrow stuck in my side.
The Enemy does not have a lot of archers?: My gambeson was a little too expensive to have it damaged by melee weaponry. No need to expose it to sharp edges.
And in general it might have also been just a preference. We all weigh our life and money differently.
@@4Curses I beg to differ, for various reasons: first, a decent enemy does what he can to conceal the quantity and kind of its forces, so it wouldn't be cautious to renounce to a protection cause you assume what you'll be facing.
Second, you try to wear all the protections you've got, since your life is more important than your belongings, and back then even a scratch from a dirty weapon could be fatal if not properly treated. It's like saying "oh, no need to wear a helmet, I'll use the motorbike in town at 50 kph at most, if I fall it would get scratched".
I think that the kind of protective gear one would use was mostly dictated by cost and availability. In northern Italy campaigns, poor conscripted people often had rigid armor made of canvas sacs coated with pitch. They couldn't remove those for weeks, and water mixed with vinegar was poured trough the neck opening to fight the infection in sores and the smell.
If you could afford both gambeson and chainmail, you could also afford to have someone fix the rings and stitch the cuts.
Oh man, you have the best sponsors!
I approve of him!
I don't agree that the vax was less exciting, you say it goes 16-17 cm in, contra 15 cm, that is an 6,7-13,3% difference in penetration (mind you the board behind it), by just adding vax you have improved the basic penetrating capability of the arrow with around 10% on average (on a sample of 1, ofc if you make it more tests we get a better more correct idea).
10% is remarkable, for just adding a bit of vax to the arrow, with the added benefit of the vax likely protecting the arrow (and sharpness) ever so slightly during transport/storage.
In general these videos are fantastic, but I think this one shows the importance of what can be done by going just that little extra and sharpening the arrows.
This channel really is a treasure!
I feel he should've tested waxing the arrow for the weaker bows that didn't quite penetrate rather than the one that already punched through, maybe he'd see some clearer difference then.
I think wax makes a difference with hard materials to make it slide better, similar to how you grease a drill to avoid it getting stuck. Gambeson does not grip the same way, thus grease has not as much effect on the friction department. But if you want to go through metal on top that wax may reduce blunting by lessening the work applied to the arrowhead from the metal and leaving it sharper once it hits the cloth.
And he himself also said that even an inch can make quite a difference. By that logic, even that little bit of extra penetration from the grease and wax is significant.
I'm glad you made that initial point about why the mail goes on the outside. Previously you did a video where you tried the various types of armor piercing arrows against the various types of armor and kind of determined that anti-mail and anti-plate arrowheads didn't do well against gambesons. Since then I was wondering, 'so why didn't they put the gambeson layer *over* the mail?' This does a good job of answering it. I look forward to the next video on the subject.
As a complete novice I can imagine arrow sharpening and waxing as a night-before-the-battle activity. Like something you might do in what is otherwise downtime. It really feels like something that could be done I'm the field or with little infrastructure or specialist training.
Considering they would later go on to cast their own lead shot for muskets in the field, it's very plausible. a really nice detail. And one where some armies mightn't bother with the expense of giving everyone wax.
Even simpler, I expect the waxing of arrowheads might have been standard practice just to prevent corrosion.
The performance effect might be a an unintended secondary effect.
@@5chr4pn3ll Very possible. And we wouldn't get any remnants of the wax.
@@XCodes Fair enough. I was thinking of bee's wax, but you're correct that would be quite affordable. I expect it's still an expense, since people did have a lot of uses for lard and wax... but quite an affordable one yeah.
Thanks for the comment.
I think you would sharpen and oil them when you made them, so they are ready when needed. Your not making the ammo for your gun the night before.
13:09 "Been a bit of a long one this time." Tod, I don't think any of us think 13:28 is long. In fact, I imagine most of would be quite excited to watch an hour of you shooting differently configured arrows at different speeds at different armor. Can't wait for the next one.
Thanks - appreciated
It's really cool that you come up with theoretical ideas, and dive right into testing them.
Best example of the scientific method. And most entertaining as well. Thanks Tod!
Thanks and yes I like to see something before I choose to 'know' it
It's one thing to sit through a mobile game ad in the middle of a completely unrelated video, but seeing YOUR products that YOU make that are incredibly relevant to the channel and the video is nothing but a joy to watch. Your products are amazing and they deserve more publicity. I really do want to buy one sometime- I'm a big fan of daggers. Hopefully I'll get to soon.
As a semi pro flintnapper and traditional bow hunter, the final edge is what is doing all the work.
As we now know something small or nerow and sharp is going to go much further.
But what I want to know is what kind of sharp? Razor sharp Gunther barded or needle hohokum point going to do more work? Wide Elko eared, or tiny piaute triangle?
I know Todd doesn't do flint but imagine the iron equivalent type tests.
If this is in the budget, I would love to see what the perfectly prepared arrow can do. Sharp and greased and what not
And what about what an arrow does to another arrow? I want to see that sharp arrow Robinhood another arrow! What weight of bow do you need to split another arrow?
I think looking only at the extreme end of potential weaponry would paint a warped picture of how deadly/how useful some weapons were.
@@evilcanofdrpepper Not sure if you think this counts but, in olympic archery a "robin hood" happens every so often during training, with
That should be easily possible. Sharpen one of the arrows to razor sharpness, the best he can manage, and compare. It'd be a valuable point of data, to help us grasp at the upper limit for penetration. Help us to work out whether they were making them razor sharp, for example.
@@evilcanofdrpepper mythbusters tesded it in some video if i remember correctly, and wood fibers are not perfectly straight so it always ended splitting like 3/4 of an arrow and then the arrow left on the side
Shameless adds are perfectly fine.
I wish I could support you directly but I can't so I like that you promote your products where many people can see it.
Your videos are great and anything that supports them is great for everyone that appreciates them
Sharpening your own arrows as a medieval archer: If you are part of a formation of archers you might have started with your own arrows, but in a lengthy battle runners - like the powder monkeys in the age of sail - would supply you with arrows, since you would spend a lot of arrows in minutes.
On the other hand if you were a skirmisher it's quite likely that spending the time to sharpen 50-100 arrows would be worth it. As you wouldn't have runners to bring you more arrows and you would be engaging specific target.
One of those things that you don't think to test but when you do, it's a case of "Well, duh! Of course that works" Really looking forward to the mail tests.
Add my voice to the "Never apologise for showcasing your own products, they're awesome" chorus.
Very interesting! Nearing the end of the video I was asking myself what wax would do in this sort of application, myself thinking that it would not matter that much since you are not trying to lubricate the arrow to squeeze through a rigid object, the mechanics here are, I think, cutting the fibers. I know that flak jackets, which are essentially a modern gambeson, can pretty readily stop blunt-nosed pistol projectiles. But they reeeally don't like those hunting three-bladed razor arrows. Even if the energies involved are much more favourable to the pistol, it is much easier to cut the fiber than to snap it! Great video!
Yeah, I’m guessing they sharpened. Also, my guess is the target medium is reducing the results. It is clearly more effective to shoot sharpened arrows, as a qualitative measurement of “it does more” but the stop medium with the hard backing is shortening the travel. Basically there isn’t enough limit band in that medium to be able to say “it’s twice as effective” or a 1/3 more effective.
Still very telling.
I would guess it heavily depended on the context. Were they ordered in bulk, was there preparation time, did the army get enough of them... was there any money? Was there any time? Or did you need your arrow stocks replenished quickly. Were you a war archer and your quartermaster might not give much of rat's ass about a lowly soldier or were you a hunter who kinda cared for every arrow individually because you bought them yourself?
There may be a lot more variation in there given that professional logistics, standardization and procurement arrived several centuries later due to the necessities of professional gunpowder armies.
@@mangalores-x_x Maybe like foot soldiers, archers tended to sharpen their arrows where possible?
Thanks Curt, I think you are right and yes I should have not had the back board but thicker medium - one to remember next time, but yes as you say very telling, but I think the true story of this will be told in the mail vid
Good point about the backboard. Still enough of a clear effect to show what's being tested, just not for saying "sharpened are 47.3% more effective" or something silly like that. Could be interesting once everything's said and done to run a test of the ideal arrow/armor configs against a lump of ballistic gel or ham, but the setup's clearly going to be more time-consuming.
Absolutely love the video! I always look forward to your next release. I usually do not comment, I prefer just to watch and read others thoughts, but this time I have a thought of my own. I noticed, and it could just be coincidence, that the first arrow of most groups of three would penetrate the least and the following two would penetrate markedly deeper. Since your gambeson sample is fastened at the four corners, and loose in the middle, is it possible the first shot has to absorb the "sponge" in material movement thus causing less penetration, And once the first arrow has pinned the sample tighter to the backdrop the proceeding arrows have less resistance as they penetrate? A taut fabric definitely cuts easier. And if this is a possibility, it could be the reason your greased arrow didn't show the results you were expecting, since it was the first arrow absorbing the slack.
You may be right and a good find. Not sure. may be coincidence or may not be
I personally enjoy your ads. I love seeing your products.
"Were back from a word of our sponsors" after he sponsored himself... yeah, kinda okay with that XD
@Tod I was a grunt in the USMC couple decades ago. Not many people have the knack but your groupings tell me a LOT. Well done indeed mate.
Thanks
So I have now watched all of your "arrow vs. armour" and all of the "lock down longbow" videos (so far) and these are some of my conclusions about the arrow warhead types Todd.
Type 16 - The general-purpose (GP) military warhead type. A development of the earliest barbed arrow heads types. When sharpened and waxed provides good "effects" against a wide variety of target types. Useful against unarmoured and fabric armoured enemies and their horses. Reduced effects against mail and plate armoured targets. Ring mail likely "catches" the wide arrowhead and reduces it velocity, much reducing "after armour" effects on the target.
Type 7 - Long Bodkin. Early armour-piercing (AP) warhead type. I call this the "Mail-Buster". A further development of Type 16. I think this was developed to defeat a combination of ring mail and heavy gambeson, with some effects against "coat of plate" style armour. Its shape is designed to "self-centre" when striking ring mail and bursts or splits the individual rings open allowing the arrowhead to keep its velocity and penetrating power so it can pass through the gambeson. Reduced effects against plate as the tip is easily malformed and distorted and this causes lack of "bite" and a high deflection rate.
Type 9 - Plate cutter. Short bodkin. Late armour piercing type. Development of Type 9. Designed in response to widespread proliferation of plate armour on the battlefield. Reduced tip length reduces deflection and malformation chance and the broader cross-section allows it to maintain its shape and transfer more energy to armour surfaces.
Looking forward to your tests against mail-gambeson combo to see if the conclusions about Type 16 and Type 7 heads is correct. :)
Good summary. And I'll add something.
Our ancestors were not idiots. They undoubtedly did tests on their arrows, got as much intelligence as they could on their opposition equipment, and went into the field as prepared as they could be.
Thanks Simon, a good and comprehensive assessment and I think I should have diarised this as I went along, but I should come back to it and blog it
Frankly, Tod's work is so beautiful that I don't mind in the slightest if he plugs it in his videos. I want to buy everything, so it obviously works!
Waxing the arrows would also be interesting to see in the mail over or under gambeson video, you say it wasn't much extra penetration but each centimetre counts when it's into a body
To quote my Kendo sensei: Only the first 10 cm count, all else is redundant.
Excellent video as always. I think it's great that your willing to admit when you're wrong, it shows good character.
15 before, 17 after... I mean, 13% improvement sounds like a lot -- so, I'd revisit that wax thing on sharpened arrowheads.
Good point - yes enough to matter for such little effort
Very true. I'm still wondering what mathematical difference it makes, whether it's a coefficient or a linear increase.
2 centimeters can make the difference of a non lethal to a lethal wound.
Just want to say, I love the fact you're using multiple weight equivalents now. It has been one of my biggest grains of salt with these is that we really only get data from a high weight bow, at short range, shooting dead on.
It makes sense, just complicates and lengthens filming
@@tods_workshop Well, the effort is appreciated!
I'm sure there's a million variables to be tested if there were the time, and sadly I'm also sure that's not the case.
I have to wonder if the orientation of the weave vs arrow head affects penetration. Since most cloth is woven at 90° striking with the arrow at 0 or 90 will only have to cut half as much fabric as a 45° impact. Modern soft body armor is made with random strand orientation for this very reason.
Since you are layering you can mix up the orientation of the fibers in the layers. It might make it harder to sew. Not sure if anyone ever did it historically but felt was used in armor.
@@masterpython I don't know about later cloth armours but I could swear I read somewhere that the ancient greeks did just that. Rotated the layers of fabric before gluing and stitching them together.
@@MrBottlecapBill that was one of the variables tested by Professor Aldrete and his team, although they didn't find any improvement by doing it.
The gluing of the armour is a bit of a re-enactorism with no supporting evidence in any culture or style of textile armour we have any record of. I know Sean Manning is preparing to publish a paper on the subject that breaks down how the original idea of glued armour came to be and why it's based on incorrect information, and I think it's being published this year.
@@masterpython it's certainly possible, but given that cloth is woven "square" the trimming process would be very wasteful. Turning the material 45° would result in large corners bring cut off. Perhaps, if they recognized this at all, the more wealthy could afford to pay for it, but I doubt a Lord would pay extra for his rank and file troops.
@@fire304 it depends on ho many sets you are making
Honestly Todd, I like you plugging your own shop and merchandise over 99% of other TH-cam channels talking about "Raid: Shadow Legends" or "Nord VPN".
Now I want to see Eddie Hall try to draw different bows and crossbows!
Imagine how heavy of a war bow Eddie and the other strongman could pull
@@russelldavis1359 I estimate that for about 230-310pounds, about the weight they bench in kilos. But because they are not trained to draw bows, it would be far less for the first few times until their nervous system learn how to draw it properly. The key is the neuro-muscular connection.
Whoever has the world record weighted pull up can pull the heaviest bow.
@@russelldavis1359 not much; their muscles aren’t formed for that. They are also severely; like actually severely hampered in every single flexible maneuver. I bet they could by strength alone pull some good ones but i bet they couldnt come close to joe gibbs
Archery is way different to any standard weightlifting or calisthenics movement. It takes years to build up the tendon strength necessary to draw heavy bows, and very specific back muscles that aren't very easily targeted in the gym. Joe Gibbs is a phenomenal athlete, he has drawn #210 @ 30" (a full draw), and a 29" draw at #220. Those numbers are around 125% of his bodyweight. Most beginner archers will typically have a draw strength that is at best 50% of their bodyweight. So we might expect that Eddie hall will be capable of drawing #170-180. Brian Shaw might be capable of drawing #200. Just imagine how heavy of a bow these men could shoot after a few years of training. They would probably blow the current Guinness record out of the water.
This channel could be filled with Tod's works for sales and the only complaint I'd have is not enough money to buy them. 😊
Oh... The real lesson from the lockdown Longview series is: Avoid getting hit by arrows. 😄
I'm interested if the layering of the gambeson makes a difference, ie the padding/stitching at right angles or with them deliberately overlapped.
The 4k video quality is much appreciated, your videos look so good now.
Even if they were shipped bulk unsharpened, you could definitely expect the archers to spend their evenings maintaining both bows and arrows, just as all soldiers would with their swords, especially on the evening before a battle. Also while waiting in formation before the battle starts they would be quietly checking their arrows and giving them a little extra edge with a pocket grindstone.
And of course, giving each arrow a preliminary sharpen on a treadle powered grindstone in the forge would take time, but not that much time, something for the apprentices to do.
I think I was facing the prospect of thousands of large angry Frenchmen trying to cut important bits off me in the morning, I'd be sharpening everything I could get my hands on. Arrowheads, bollock dagger, even the tips of my pointy shoes.
I imagine while on campaign there was a lot of time spent waiting worrying about whether you're going to die and doing all you can to avoid that.
@@timharris3292 The only question is if you would do it even after whole days of marching, setting camps, gathering wood, preparing meals et cetera. I honestly can imagine myself going "Nah, it's good enough" in such a situation and leave those arrowheads in a state they were issued to me.
On top of that, there is an issue of transporting them. I doubt that archers had all those arrows "on them". Most remained in wagons and were most likely issued in bigger numbers right before the battle. But you still have to reach the place the battle will take place, set the camp, prepare some field fortifications, and so on. How much time will be left for sharpening the arrows?
@@kamilszadkowski8864 All true, but when it comes to pitched battles, they could be set up hours before the fighting actually started, time enough to see that your ready quivers were sharp at the very least, Anyway a soldiers camp would include all manner of tradesmen including farriers, blacksmiths and fletchers.
All depends on how hard-pressed your army is really, if they had time they'd do it, otherwise they'd rely on the grindstone sharpen done at the fletchers forge.
Sharp enough to cut is all that is needed.
I always like how excited you are when making these tests. Keep up the good work, Tod!
Now you mention it I'd love to see Eddie Hall have a go drawing bows and crossbows
I have been so very impressed by your series of scientific tests on Armour of various types against your variety of arrows. I did some ad hoc tests back when I was doing recreation and making Armour, but nothing like you and your friends have done. The simple conclusion i came to was "steel good, soft not so much ", as if that wasn't obvious enough. However,,as you've shown, it's àll relattive, with many variables to consider. I very much appreciate your videos, as do many others, and look forward to more. Thanks for entertainment and knowledge
Thanks Len - appreciated
would marking the arrows at 1 cm intervals with a pen help to get precise depth without needing to pull them out?
This is exactly what is done here, he reads the penetration on the arrows directly.
At 13:19 you can see the red markings.
Alternatively you know the length of your arrow and just measure the amount of the arrow that *isn't* in your target.
Did that, but not marked all round just on one 'face'
Tod always seems to answer questions I never knew I needed answers to
Being a bow hunter, a sharp head is essential. In my imagination the archers were always sharpening their arrows the night before a battle if possible.
Agreed
Though a bow hunter would use far fewer arrows that a war archer in battle.
@@hanelyp1 totally agree. Heck a bow hunter would probably shoot fewer arrows at game in the course of of his career than many war archers shot in a single battle.
I wonder if sharpness would make a difference when going up against high grade armor, or rather against anything metal.
Were archers trusted enough to be issued ammo that long before the battle?
Just seen this channel over on idw.community. Very interesting! This gentleman is a teacher of history, physics, metallurgy/woodworking, armory/weaponry and the general use of science to resolve theory.
Kids in Canada (14 yrs) used to have to study and pass a course called "Hunter Training and Survival", a basic gunsmithing class, archery class, and a 3-day outdoor winter survival camp-out...a lean-to in the middle of February with a fire to keep warm and whatever food you could hike in 5 miles with.
Imagine taking classes in middle school from this man? Invaluable knowledge and skill acquisition! The school drop-out rate would likely be eliminated. ;)
2cm could be a significant difference for the waxed arrow. It's all about the sample size, the statistics could work out the difference significance if you shot like 25 of each at least, you could test your hypothesis rigorously! I'd be happy to help with the maths Tod, just requires a bit of commitment to a bigger sample size.
Yes it is enough to count and a bigger sample size would be great, but I just don't have time or resources for that, but hopefully these will indicate the direction of thought if not the actual answer
Eureka moment = let's shoot something new. I love your channer Tod, your products and your amazing, historic curiosity.
Was that a deliberate name drop of Eddie Hall? Are we going to see a mad crossover of Eddie Hall spanning crossbows and Tod deadlifting ?
Dropping DJ and Hall in same video
I was asking for that for months. Not for Tod deadlifting but invite Eddie - or some other strongman - to see what would be the limits for a soldier like them.
I hope so
@@Gabrong I think Eddie would be perfect. Another "Strongman tried XY" video from him. He is basically a TH-camr now.
@@MollymaukT for sure - the video will be called "Can WSM Eddie Hall shoot a Medieval Longbow" with all the rhetoric and hyperbole. But it would still be a great vid I just hope Eddie doesn't break one of Joe's bows 😬
Perfect sponsor ;). Love your work and videos. Sharpness is an interesting idea so many myths and so little good evidence. Even this 3 sample is more than most people will argue for hours over.
7:37 that would be an awsome new strongman discipline! Who can span the heaviest crossbow with his/her bare hands.
Would be problematic from a safety-standpoint I think.
@@magnusbergqvist2123 Yeah.... it basically screams ripped of or otherwise injured fingers. But it would still be fun though.
Entire Strongman is problematic from the safety standpoint, I don't think crossbows are any more dangerous than holding two huge pillars that are falling down in opposite directions.
@@lscibor Well the normal stuff they use usually don't risk breaking apart sending splinters everywhere, or rapidly hitting things.
Hi Todd, please continue this series. I love this scientific approach.
I'm wondering if dry gambeson is that different in absorbing impact when compared to a wet or even water-soaked gambeson.
That would probably depend heavily on at least 3 factors.
1. What cloth is being used? Wool and linen could behave quite differently.
2. How long it's wet.
3. How is it being cared for? Wax or oil added to the cloth would reduce water's impact quite a bit. I can see a lot of oil/wax transfer from metal armor or used on the gambeson intentionally for water proofing.
I think wet would act very differently
I do not know what wet gambeson would do for you protection wise, but i suspect you would go to great lengts to avoid it. This is because gambeson is constructed in such a way that i belive it can hold quite alot of water, resulting in maybe as much as three times the weight. In short, the water must add a great deal of protection to offset the added weight, and while it may offer some, i highly doubt it to be worth while.
(pardon my grammars, english is not my native language)
@@tods_workshop I'd guess wet is much better at stopping projectiles, even sharp ones.
I have seen tests to compare sharpened obsidian arrowheads with simple pointy wood tips. The penetration was exactly the same, but since death comes from bleeding out (most often I guess) the point which cuts more creates more "damage" and the taget bleeds out faster. Of course this was against target animals without armor.
Would 'chisel' sharpening opposing blade edges, impart any 'twist' on the impact cuts - & with or against the spin?
My speculation would be not really. Theres a lot of momentum going forward, and moving fast. In theory, yes it would, but in practice I doubt you could notice
There are modern broadheads with bevel sharpened blades that are simulator to what you are asking about. You have to have the bevel in the same direction as the fetching so the head cuts with the spin. They are used against animals with thick bones as this head style splits bone instead of trying to cut through them. It's very effective.
Yes, "chisel" sharpened broadheads are known for their "S" shaped wound channel. They torque and spin when they enter the animal due to only having one bevel on each side of the head.
@@Hercules1-v9m depends on which hunter you ask.. some swear by mechanicals, too, some by four blade, some by simple two blade double bevels
what spin?
I love these experiments, Tod. Thank you for taking the time to test these things that people like us wonder about but don't have the resources to find out the answers. Thank you thank you, sir!
Now I want you to invite Eddie Hall and make him span a 350lbs crossbow with one finger. I demand it.
I can't remember if you mentionned it in previous videos, but I always wanted to ask: what's the spine/grain (just the wooden shaft) of the arrows you use for the armour tests?
They're 1/2"/12mm ash, IIRC.
I have no idea who that is, but let him try Joe Gibbs' heavy bow a few times and let us see what he is made of.
Tod should make one of those ancient Chinese crossbows with long powerstrokes and make Eddie Hall span them because they were meant to be spanned by muscle power. The ancient Han era crossbows had a median draw weight of 387 lb (with a powerstroke of maybe 18-20 inches) and the heaviest ancient personnel crossbows supposedly went up to the 600s-700s lbs. The heavier ones that weren't mechanically drawn light field artillery crossbows were supposedly drawn while lying in a fetal position and pushing against the crossbow with your feet on the prod like doing a leg press-like maneuver. The mechanically drawn light field artillery crossbows (eg. winches and/or with multiple people) were supposed to be in the 5000s lb draw weight so Eddie Hall wouldn't be able to draw that one.
@@Intranetusa you can see some footage of the big Chinese crossbows you were talking about in action in the movie 'Hero'.
"STORM, STORM, STORM!!!"
@@ScottKenny1978 Unfortunately, that movie was rather inaccurate because they didn't even use real crossbows. In that movie, the soldiers had to hold the crossbows for extended times with their hands and feet because they were actually using bows without a cocking & locking mechanism. They also portrayed the soldiers as shooting the crossbows while in fetal position, when in reality, they would've only loaded the crossbow in a fetal position (or while standing up for lower draw weights) and then shot the crossbow in a normal upright position.
I'm pretty sure I first subscribed to this channel to watch what Tod is now calling ads, so yeah - keep showing me dope crossbows and stuff!
Tod, please don't declare your ads as shameless. They are not, how else would everyone here know, that we too could play with toys as awesome as yours? Just because I can't afford one of your bows doesn't mean I wouln't if I could. And I wouln't have known I could without you informing me =)
Thanks - appreciated
Hi it’s Neil from Neils sofa here. Good to see you back Tod. Made a bodkin( rough) that went through an inch of pine at 100 meters, Reflex bow made by Yamaha . Strangely satisfying!
Nice vid
We see considerable sharpness in Hungarian kite-shaped arrowheads, which hit more or less like chisels. They're made with very clear and careful edges.
Lockdown + Tod = major historical discoveries! More experimental history/archaeology please!
Tod, can you test different daggers how well they penetrate fabric? Rondel daggers, stilleto daggers, "normal" double edged daggers,... Which dagger is best for fabric, chainmail+fabric, plate armor?
Found your channel a few months back and man do I wish I had found it sooner. Quality content here, very much appreciate all the effort your put into it. Keep it up!
I've wanted one of your crossbows for about ten years, but they're illegal in my country
What kind of oppressive country do you live in that even outdated weapons are banned?
The creator - I love the comments in this channel because they are so well moderated, polite and considered and allow us all to learn and discuss even if we have different opinions. Countries too have different laws, which we could discuss, but why not do so in a measured and polite way rather than start with something like this? There is no need. You also may have learned something about this chaps country but as I suspect he will not reply, you have now lost that opportunity
@@tods_workshop That's the wisest TH-cam comment I've read in the longest time, maybe ever, and is good food for thought for anyone
I did some foamsport years ago. I decided to wear my new chainmail on a hot day, so I wore the mail without anything underneath. I took one or two good shots to that armor, and decided 'never again' without a gambeson, or something thick, underneath. The force of even a foam sword knocking metal rings into your skin at high speeds is painful, and that's before you realize that those rings pinch, too!
Todd, I say gambeson will go underneath, if only for that reason. Looking forward to the next one :)
I know this isn't really a question about the content of the vid, and more of a question about the shameless ad...
So you used the goats foot lever to cock the crossbow. I was thinking, was there any record in history where the goats foot lever was attached on the underside of the crossbow, and it was cocked sort of like a lever action rifle?
There were crossbows whith built in lever where whole mechanism moves forward to engage string. Tod made replica:
th-cam.com/video/M0m5udFoPnA/w-d-xo.html
I know of more with same mechanism but they are bullet crossbows (stonebows):
emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=43473&viewType=detailView
emuseumplus.lsh.se/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=43470&viewType=detailView
@@projektchop3433 Thanks for sharing!
My prediction for the next video is that the needle heads will loose quite a bit of effectiveness against mail worn underneath gambeson. Love the series, keep up the great work Tod!
Todd, I recommend using the word "hypothesis" instead of theory, this is more correct, and reduces peoples interpretation of the word "theory" as something untested and unproven.
I was thinking of the same thing.
Fascinating. That double-layer fabric armor could potentially turn an arrow at all is amazing on its own. Makes me wonder if maybe some would wear fabric under AND over the maille.
“I’ve greased this one up, got wax on the head- Ooh! It’s in, doesn’t look very deep!” Todd 2021
Thinking on the role of steel in the arrowhead, I think it would help penetrate the Maille as well. The blunting effect to the arrowhead would increase friction with the maille itself, by increasing the contact area as the head strapes through. A harder head would skid more easily against the softer metal. The sharp edges would offer a mechanical advantage to splitting the rings, concentrating force on two acute points.
I wonder if you could test maille penetration with a press of some kind to get some hard numbers for splitting rings with different arrowheads as well as sharp vs blunt. THAT could be a cool series, and I bet we would learn a ton.
That makes sense, otherwise why should have anyone bothered with a Gambeson at all?
You're not going to use something that doesn't work and actually encumbers you, would you?
That is unless we are talking about medicine...
@@Slash-XVI - There's that.
Love the science you do. You have an idea, you research it, you form an idea, you test it, and you record it. I think the next question of the mail is how much energy does the arrow lose going though either layer.
If the gambeson is on top, does that mean the arrow loses enough energy that it won't penetrate the mail underneath. Or does the gambeson not do enough?
On the flip side does the mail dull the arrow and take out enough energy that it can't pass through the gambeson anymore. We already saw today that unsharpened arrows have difficulty with gambeson.
If I had to guess I'd say the mail on top has a better chance since that's what we see in history and from today's test it makes the most sense. What I do know for sure is that I am excited for the next film.
Does the green stock mean that's a zombie hunting crossbow?
Not in the UK, that would make it illegal.
@@hello7533 Zombies are people too, mkay?
I really like your research approach. Only looking at one parameter at a time and then beeing able to determine their importance in more complex situations
Thanks - well articulated
The wax is adding 13% more penetration, I’d be happy with that.
Loved the "drop the mic" in the end..but with the gambeson.
Drop the gambeson is the new way.
I always make sure to sharpen my bullets befors I go out
Fascinating! Excellent experimental archaeology, well done Tod.
First
This leads me to have questions. A wine soaked gambeson (earlier video), would that alter the results?
The pattern of mail used. 4in1, 8in2, would this impact the results?
What about mail sandwiched between layers of gambeson. Not sure this was done in history but an interest thought.
Love these videos.
There's not much of evidence of any other pattern of mail than 4 in 1 in Europe.
Though "details" of maille as exact combination wire diameter, ring size, joint size etc. would definitely make huge difference.
Just look at stuff like this mail collar made of very fine rings - looks almost like a sweater made of iron :
i.pinimg.com/originals/af/c8/29/afc829f9769beb6b5d1c6d509a6e56b0.jpg
Unfortunately, people like Isaac who are making anything resembling historical mail are still very rare, recreating something like this collar is a pipe dream right now. Especially without thousands of dollars to spend.
@@lscibor all good points. I used the term pattern as it was easier for most to follow.
And with Eddie Hall's mention, my twin TH-cam fondness of mediaeval arms and strongman competitions leap willingly into one another's arms. Bravo!
Same here!
Do not ever apologize for the length of your videos.
I reckon you're right about wearing your layers in the right order making a difference. If you can blunt the arrow head as it passes through the mail, you've removed the advantage that sharpening gave it - as well as removing a fair bit of force before it even reaches the gambeson. That's my prediction, anyway - will be interesting to see just how much of a difference it'll make. :-)
I have learned not to make predictions and yet I still do, so I tend to agree with you
Everyone of your experiments is always really interesting!
Another great video. I really enjoy your work. Most folks today have no idea about how things worked. We look back and look down on those ages but people are people and people are smart, and especially so when motivated to save their own skins. No one would wear a gambison if it did not work. Yet, we know it was cheap, common armor. Easy to mass produce, easy to procure, much lighter to wear. It was good. Also, sharp arrows, I can't recall the specifics but it is niggling at the back of my mind that there were some documents from the era that discuss the arrows, keeping there of, storage, and of course the sharpening.
No, wait.. look I should read comments before commenting. There is one below. I know I've also read about it from European documents as well. But there it is.
Really hope you can test the difference sharpness and hardness makes with metal armour, after this experiment. Sharpness should help to concentrate the force for a penetration, and prevent skidding. A harder arrowhead in particular should make a huge difference.
I really enjoy these type of videos, thanks Todd.
I imagine the best combination of maille and gambeson would be both ways: some over the maille, so that the blunter arrows bunch up the material under them, making it way harder to pass in the gaps between maille and/or burst the rings as they have more material in their way and some under, of course, to prevent chafing, cushion the blows some more and protect against sharper arrows. I imagine the one over is especially useful against blunter, piercing type arrows that have more trouble with fabric, whilst the one under would be most useful against the slowed down/dulled down sharper, broader cutting arrows that have more trouble with the maille. That way, the armor is more than the sum of its parts, getting the best of both.
Just my amateur guess, but I believe I've seen the same conclusion posted somewhere else as well (as a hypothesis rather than the result of an experiment*). I haven't gone through the sources as well, but I've seen several more experienced reenactors mention it was done historically. So take that with a grain of salt, it might make your gambeson harder anyways ;)
That's exactly the idea Middle Eastern "jazerant" or armor worn in Europe in later 13th and 14th century. Some lighter cloth armor worn beneath mail, and thicker, firmer one above.
www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm
Such combination was potent defense, on the other hand it was very thick and puffy, which was kinda taking away bigadvantage of a mail armor - the fact that it's perfectly flexible.
Thank you, Tod! You do the great job for history!
Absolutely loved this! Can’t wait for the next one.
I remember a picture someone sent me. It was spot in a medieval stone wall where the archers supposedly sharpened their arrow heads. Turns out it might actually be true!
He just keeps finding the most interesting video ideas
Gambeson info please: Coarse linen with cotton padding? Thickness under compression? Weave orientation? That was just a single or double gambeson back to back?
Like the acknowledgement. David Jones name doesn't come up as often as it probably should. . His experiments were well documented and of much higher sample size than most. The mail sample you've aquired look superior to what was avaible to him, and your range of draw weights are a bonus. (I just hope that Isak's mail isn't puny 1.2 gauge stuff. Go thick or go home!)
Appreciate how concise the video is. Maybe in future just throw the details in the description for all the real gangstas.
Love it,
And now the moment we've all been waiting for..
coarse linen canvas outers, 30 layers of light shirt linen inners, all the same weave orientation (more material efficient)
@@tods_workshop Thanks Tod! And you know I'm going to get all pedantic about them mail details, right?
1:46 i respect your theory in terms of breaching armor but i believe steel heads has much less to do with the sharpness factor than simply pushing as much weight to the front of the arrow as possible and increasing the FOC ratio. two arrows of equal sharpness and differing FOC ratios will penetrate differently. I’ve done tons of experiments with FOC and found it alone makes an incredible difference with taking game. sharpness helps too but not as much as componential control over how the arrow is flying. its still in 3 dimensions so it has a horizontal and vertical component in flight, the purpose of dense metals up front is to eliminate the vertical component in flight, making it shoot like a dart rather than a javelin.
Hi Tod,
It's interesting that there are parallels in this arrow vs mail/gamebeson scenario to a rifle bullet vs modern body armor (ceramic and kevlar). Modern hard body armor is effective because the ceramic acts as an abrasive on the striking bullet, causing significant deformation and fragmentation (similar to mail blunting or dulling a striking arrow). That deformed and fragmented bullet is then caught by the kevlar (like the blunted and dulled arrow is caught in the gambeson). If the order were to be reversed, the rifle bullet would pass through the kevlar without any trouble, and then deform/fragment through the ceramic and into the body. Just like how the arrow would pass easily through the gambeson, be blunted by the mail, and pass into the body.
And for the same reason you would want to use a sharpened steel arrowhead in an attempt to reduce the deformation from the mail and increase penetration, bullets designed for defeating modern body armor include hardened steel and tungsten cores.
The more things change, the more they stay the same ;)
And great work as always. Cheers!