Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Summary
Bibliography
Credits
Appendix

Return to Aethelmearc Archery

Received from "Roderick", supposedly a squire from the East Kingdom, who is supposedly squired to an un-named Duke (4 Crowns, various Kingdoms, 25 years fighting), and who supposedly got this information from an un-named East Kingdom Count. (My own comments are interspersed in italics throughout.)

Here is the reply from my friend who has also done extensive research on period armour and all that...  I sent him the link to website, and here was what he had to say:

"I've refuted almost all of these points in other e-mails, so much so that I'm sick and tired of writing them. I'll admit I can't speak to the Viking references; they're simply not a period I study. (That should be sufficient. After admitting he can't speak to the viking references, he goes on and does so anyway) I *will* say, however, that these are incredibly unreliable and have always been considered so by historians, at least when it comes to this sort of detail. (Opinion, unless he gives us something to back it up. This could be examples of inaccuracies, or the names of these historians who consider them inaccurate.) The answer probably lies in mistranslation: a lot of the translations for these were done by "antiquarians", not real scholars, and they often bolluxed things up. (Academic and historical research 'conventions' of debate would at this time require the person attacking a translations as bad to give a correct translation, preferably backed up with the original language of the text. Requested, not received) There could be other reasons, maybe the author was just trying to aggrandize his heroes. (Had the author of this 'refutation' actually read my text, he would have seen that, in Saxo's case, he was 'aggrandizing' the Swedish archers, not his own much beloved Danes, and this 'supposed' aggrandizing [I used the word 'exaggerated', as a previous 'critic' had called it] was directly dealt with there in my text.) Another explanation may lie in the fact that the Vikings apparently used butted (as opposed to riveted or solid) rings in their mail: there's some at the Sutton Hoo ship burial made this way (see Blair, _European Armor_, p.20), and butted mail *can* be pierced by arrows (whereas medieval mail was never like this--see Blair, same page). (Vikings used butted mail. Vikings used riveted mail also. While I have not seen the exibit at the Smithsonian, it is my understanding that they have examples of some very high quality riveted 'viking era' chain mail: higher quality than lots of later chain mail. And I do believe that both 940 AD and 1063 AD are in the time span considered 'medieval', which are the two dates on my 'viking' accounts.) Moreover, we're not Vikings, so this evidence is not related to what we do. (We are not 'vikings'. Nor are we any other single classification of persons. Some of us are 'vikings, and I do believe that 'vikings' were pre-17th century Western Europeans, so they clearly fall into our core area and period of  study.) Oh, and by the way, if more than one in a thousand Vikings wore a helmet as comprehensive as the one he shows the picture of, I'll e (Something seems to have been dropped here, from the way this cuts off. The picture I placed in my text of the pre-viking helmet from Vendal was placed there only as an illustration that chain mail was known to the persons of the area and time of the text I was quoting, not to illustrate what style of helmet was common. An actual reading of my text would have shown the author of this 'refutation' that. But now, we get to see a double standard at play. He refers to the chain mail from Sutton Hoo. The way he refers to it as though it is the 'common' warrior grade armor. Butted mail is just as 'decorative' as riveted mail, but is much quicker, easier, and therefore cheaper to make. The helmet from the Sutton Hoo site is much more ornate (comprehensive) than the Vendal helmet I showed. If the chain mail from Sutton Hoo is 'common' warrior grade armor, then the very fancy, highly decorative helmet from Sutton Hoo would be the 'common' warrior grade helmet too, wouldn't it? But he wants to reject the much plainer Vendal helmet as something less than one in a thousand vikings would have had. See the double standard he wants to apply?)

As for the other stuff, a lot of it is simple inaccuracy on the author's part. (Author - that's me. He needs to show my inaccuracy. Otherwise, this is just his own unsubstantiated opinion) For example, the picture of the Baueux Tapestry where an arrow has supposedly pierced the guy on the ground's thigh could just as easily be showing an arrow stuck into the ground beside him! (The two arrows are shown as having struck at approximately the same angle of impact. If the one at his thigh came down at that very steep angle, and stuck in the ground, then the arrow at his face came down and stuck in the guy's face while he was laying on his back looking up into the sky.) He's obviously been killed by an arrow to the face, just as Harold was. Coincidence? I think not! (I agree that he was killed by an arrow to the face. All I put the picture in my study for was to show that William the Conquerer's half brother, Odo, who commissioned the tapestry, and oversaw the production of it, believed that Norman arrows would in fact penetrate Saxon chain mail, and since he actually fought at Hastings, he would know. It does not matter that the arrow that penetrated the chain mail on the Saxon's thigh didn't kill him. What matters is that it penetrated the armor. Had it hit him in a vital spot, it might have killed him.)

Then the author tries to support Cambrensis, known widely as "the National Enquirer" of his day by modern historians. (Here the producer of this refutation needs to identify these 'modern historians'. I asked for that information - it was not provided. That makes this an unsubstantiated statement, just like the first time it was sent to me.) His writings were full of (expletive deleted), as anyone who wasn't blinded by a desire for "evidence" knows.(If I am 'blinded' by a desire for evidence, does that mean he has no desire for evidence? reading his refutation, and seeing his complete lack of evidence, it is easy to believe.) Just think of it: He claims that arrows were shot *through* a four-inch-thick oaken door. (Actually, the quote I gave said 'four fingers thick', which is about three inches.) Now, do you think that you could do that with even a modern bow of *any* power, even using high-tech arrows? (Geraldus is not the only person to claim penetrations this deep into wood. He's just the only one who claims it for these particular arrows shot by the Welch. Alvar Nunez Cabesa de Vaca ["La Relacion"], tells of personally seeing an arrow shot half a foot into a (living) poplar tree, and having his men tell of seeing at least two red oak trees, each as thick as a man's calf, "pierced from side to side by arrows". This happened in Florida in 1528 AD and involved primitive American Indian bows and arrows with stone heads, not 'high-tech' modern arrows. If these low-tech arrows and bows could do it, does it matter if modern equipment can do it or not? De Vaca also tells of these same stone-tipped arrows penetrating "good armor". Saxton Pope tells of shooing a 'blunt' arrow completely through a one inch thick board with a 75# bow, and a broadhead arrow three inches into one before the head bound up. He also tells of securing a Crecy-type bodkin pointed arrow and a 'beautiful 15th century chain mail shirt' from the Museum of Anthropology in San Francisco, and shooting the arrow through the shirt and an inch of wood. I'll not give citations on these here, but I can.) He claims that an arrow was shot though a man's hauberk, through his thigh, though a part of his saddle (and remember, these were *wooden* saddles covered in leather back then!) and still penetrated deeply enough into the horse to "mortally wound" it? Come on, Dave, you've shot deer; does that seem likely???

His next paragraph talks about the Poles, and it says many of them weren't wearing armor, so when the arrows fell some were killed and all fled. Your boy uses this to argue that some of the ones *wearing* armor were killed, when there's nothing whatsoever to support that contention. He even says it himself: there's no evidence to say that any of the ones in armor were killed. He argues that of they broke, *some* of the ones wearing armor must have been killed by arrows, but that's only likely if you're ignorant enough to believe that arrows actually kill people in armor *through* their armor. Frankly, what's more likely is that when the large numbers of unarmored troops started to die like flies, the armored troops ran because they no longer had the numbers to succeed. (80,000 Pole and other Europeans fought with 20,000 mounted Mongolian archers. The Poles lost between 70,000 and 78,000 of their 80,000 man force, depending on which account of this battle you read. Some people may think that none of those 70,000+ men were killed by arrows through their armor.)

That's how *most* medieval battles worked: you didn't actually kill a lot of guys at first, you broke them so they ran, *then* the slaughter began.

In the memoirs of Joinville he argues that since the King's men put Louis into his "jousting" armor to prevent him from being wounded that must mean his regular armor *wouldn't* have prevented him from being wounded. (This man must not have read Joinville's memoirs. Joinville never says that Louis's men dressed Louis in jousting armor. Joinville's men dressed Joinville in jousting armor.)

Ah, but now we use the word "wounded", and that's very different from killed. There's ample evidence that arrows could punch deeply enough into a hauberk to make a small wound in the days before aketons were worn(which didn't start until the 12th century). Try it yourself: Put a piece of mail on your arm then take an arrow and stab into it. You'll find that the arrow pushes the mail (without breaking it!) into your resilient flesh enough to let it poke you pretty well. In fact, later in that same chronicle, (Actually, the incident described below happens earlier, not later.) de Joinville talks about how Louis and his knights were so wounded with arrows that they chose to fight without their hauberks, wearing only quilted gambesons instead. (Again, evidence that this man has never read Joinville. Joinville, not the King, was the person wounded, not by arrows, but by 'fire-darts', and fought without his armor, not because he thought his tunic [Joinville doesn't say 'padded'] would protect him, but because he simply could not wear his armor and they were attacked. And this account of him fighting unarmored does not say they even faced arrows at that time. Need I say more?)  The wounds they got were from arrows! But they weren't enough to keep them from fighting, they just didn't want to do so in their mail, and, indeed, they considered their gambesons to be sufficient to stop the arrows coming in on them. Oh, and back to the original argument, please note that Louis' jousting armor was just a mail hauberk with "double mail" over the chest.

It was no different anywhere else. This double mail was hypothesized to be (by Blair, among others; I don't remember the specific page but it's in chapter One of his book European Armor) either extra heavy links(i.e., double thickness) or else two links were used in place of one. (Blair "hypothesized" this to be the case. As far as I have been able to determine, no artifact of this type of 'double mail' has ever been found.)

Obviously this wouldn't work on most parts of the body since it would stiffen the mail significantly, hence the observation that it was only done over the chest.

The next bit is *finally* in my period. Froissart was *not* at Crecy.(Oh, I love this one. In my study, the only mention made of Crecy are two quotes from Peter N. Jones ["The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages"], and one ascribed by Kelly DeVries ["Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century"] to someone named Giles li Nuisit, [of whom I was able to find nothing] The names of both of these texts were sent to me by persons who believe that armor would stop arrows. So not only did he not read Joinville, he must not have actually read my text either.)  Moreover, his text does *not* say anyone was killed *through* armor. Yes, horses were killed (but barding was neither comprehensive nor universal, meaning it didn't cover a horse as completely as armor covered a man and it wasn't used on every horse), and yes, men were killed, but look at the evidence I sent you yesterday: Men *were* killed in armor... when arrows struck them in vital spots not covered by armor!! the face has always been a weak point because people fight with their visors up or off for better air and visibility. Look at the quotes I sent you about how that happened. Ditto with the Monstrelet quote.

I quote to you from Kelly DeVries' _Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century_: "The English in these battles had in the longbow a technological advantage which no one else had, and they used this weapon not as a "killing machine", as some historians have contended, but instead to narrow their opponent's charges and to protect against flank attacks. Indeed, using their archers as the English did, ordered along and protruding out from the flanks of the infantry lines, . . . (insert a long list of battles here, *including* Crecy!) . . . there was little need for the longbowmen to kill many of their opponents. Their purpose was simply to narrow and confuse the attacker's charge so that when it fell onto the infantry troops, it [meaning the charge, not the arrows--HTK] did so in a disrupted and relatively impotent manner. (The English cannons at Crecy seem to have been used in the same way.)" p.194." (There is that 'HTK' again, just like was with all the other DeVries quotes in my text. And just like all the other DeVries quotes, notice that this quote also does not address whether armor stopped arrows, or arrows penetrated armor. But I notice in this one, cannon is mentioned. So, the English cannon at Crecy were not used to kill people, but to only cause confusion. Does that mean that the armor of the French resisted the English arrows as well as it resisted the English cannon? Or to put it another way, that the English arrows were just as effective at killing armored men as was the English cannon? Okay, I'll believe that! But notice again, the double standard he is trying to apply. He will not accept either Froissart or Monstrelet, simply because they were not at the battle. He ignores the fact that both of these writers are quite well accepted as reliable chroniclers of the Hundred Years War, that they actually lived during the time the events they describe were going on, and based their writings on the accounts given by eyewitnesses to these battles. He won't accept them, but he wants us to accept Kelly DeVries, who was not even alive at the time of the battles, and never talked to a single person who was at any of these battles. Not to knock Mr. DeVries, but if Froissart and Monstrelet are to be disqualified because they were not there, then he has also disqualified DeVries. This is not just poor scholarship, it's hypocrisy.)

Any thoughts?
(Only that I will quote here Roderick's Knight, with my own addition in italics at the end)