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

Return to Aethelmearc Archery

Chapter 4

    This was the most difficult chapter to write. In my own independent search through texts I knew of and could find, I found no examples of chain mail armor stopping arrows. Thanks to the efforts of three people who believe chain mail would stop arrows, I was led to many "examples" supposedly recounting chain mail stopping arrows. Unfortunately, every one of these "examples" is 'flawed' in one way or another. If I simply ignore these 'flawed' examples, I leave myself open to charges I simply ignored the other side's case because I couldn't refute it. But if I give these examples, and show their flaws, I stand the chance of being accused of attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message. Several of the examples are so badly cited that I simply could not identify the text or author, others simply could not be found in a readily available translation, and at least three were sent with provably falsified quotes. Picking what I considered the least of two possible evils, I chose to give the examples, show the flaws, the bad citations and the falsifications, and let the chips fall where they may. And while doing this, provide an honest refutation to the legitimate and locatable quotes. I cannot do this without giving a bit of an attack towards the person who provided the falsified quotes, as he is the very person who claims credit for the proposal this study is designed to address. It is his proposal that claims "extensive research" showing chain mail stopping arrows, after all. One other submission contains a falsification, but it is not provable as a deliberate act. I have named the three people who provided these "examples" Person One, Person Two, and Person Three, for simplicity's sake, and to hide their identity. All bolding and the reference numbers at the start of each entry are mine. Long before I started this study, in fact long before the proposal was sent to the SEM, Person One sent me these four accounts. This is the first account.

    11a. 'King Louis on Crusade (mid 13th century) climbed up on hillside by making use of a large tree root and cut with his sword in his other hand. Many archers fired at him, but according to the chronicler who witnessed the sight, he was kept safe by his hauberk.'
    Later, after I began this study, Person Two sent the following to an Email list, where a friend found it, and forwarded it to me for my study. I call this Person Two's first submission.
    11b. 'Odo of Douil  concerning the ill-fated second crusade (mid-12th century):
"During this engagement the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armor protected him from the arrows, and to keep from be captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword.." '
    Later yet, Person Two, stating, 'Here are some of the examples of what I mean by documentation I posted on another list....', sent this to the Missile Combat list in what I call his second submission.
    11c. 'Odo of Douil concerning the ill-fated second crusade (mid-12th century):
"During this engagement the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But his armor protected him from the arrows, and to keep from be captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword.." '
    Wait a second! What happened to the words, "by the will of God" in that sentence about his armor protecting him. Notice that Douil is misspelled the same (it's supposed to be Deuil), and in the last line, the word 'be' is used instead of 'being'. This is a 'cut and paste' from his earlier post, so this removing of the five words is an obvious deliberate falsification of the quote.
    Still later, Person Three, in what I call his second submission, after I had already sent a refutation of the above to the Missile Combat list, had this sent to the Missile Combat list by someone else, as Person Three had just quit the list and could not send it directly.
    11d. 'Odo of Douil concerning the ill-fated second crusade (mid-12th century):
"During this engagement the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his armor protected him from the arrows, and to keep from be captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword.." '
    This is again an obvious 'cut and paste' from some source common to both of the above, as the same two typos are still present. At least, he cut from a non-falsified version. This, of course, does invalidate the first account, from Person One, who missed the date by 100 years. That could have been a simply typo, but I think the rest of his accounts will remove that as a probable excuse. I found, after several days of searching using Google, "De profectione Ludovico VII in orientem", by Odo of Deuil, 'used', through Amazon, and bought it. It took so long because of the misspelling of the author's name and lack of a text name. This passage is near the end of 'Book Six'.
"During this engagement, the King lost his small but renowned royal guard; keeping a stout heart, however, he nimbly and bravely scaled a rock by making use of some tree roots which God had provided for his safety. The enemy climbed after, in order to capture him, and the more distant rabble shot arrows at him. But by the will of God his cuirass protected him from the arrows, and to keep from being captured he defended the crag with his bloody sword...'
    11 Refutation - There is only one difference in what I found, and the second and last times this was submitted, and that is the word 'cuirass' being used in the copy I have, and 'armor' being used in the previous versions. The copy I have has the original Latin text of facing pages to the translation, so I checked, and the Latin word used is 'lorica'. As far as I know, either cuirass or armor would be an acceptable translation, and in fact, I think I prefer 'armor'. However, there is still the issue of the 'missing' words in the version I claim to be falsified. The Latin version of this story reads, 'In hoc rex parvulum sed gloriosum perdidit comitatum regalem; vero retinens animum, agilis et virilis, per radices cuiusdam arboris quam  saluti eius Deus providerat ascendit scopulum. Post quem populus hostium ut eum caperet ascendebant, et turba remotior eum ibidem sagittabat. Sed Deo volente sub lorica tutatus est a sagittis, cruentatoque gladio ne capi posset defendit scopulum, ...' I underlined the critical words, which shows that the phrase "by the will of God" is part of the text. I call them 'critical words' for a reason. Louis hears that some of his people are being attacked, so he and his 'Royal Guard' of about forty people ride out of camp to go to their aid. Upon arrival, the people being attacked run away, and the Moslems attack Louis and his men. In the ensuing battle, all of his Royal Guard are killed or captured, and Louis is unhorsed. Then the above story happens. It soon becomes clear to the Moslems, who have not recognized Louis, that this person is going to be too hard to capture, so they pull back, because night is coming and they are afraid of a possible additional attack. Louis escapes, makes his way to the rest of the pack train. Now Odo's story continues. 'When he came upon it (referring to the baggage train), the king, who was on foot, secured a horse and accompanied the men through the evening, which had already fallen. At that time breathless cohorts of knights from the camp met him and groaned when they saw him alone, bloody, and tired, for, without asking, they knew what had happened and mourned inconsolably for the missing royal escort, which numbered about forty...' About forty people ride out on a rescue mission, and only Louis survives intact. Odo credits this to 'the will of God'. Several places in the text, when unusual occurrences happen, Odo ascribes such unusual things to the intervention of God. He is, after all, writing to his superior, the Abbot Suger. This incident is no different. Something unusual happens, in that Louis was not injured by the arrows shot at him. Had it been normal and expected that his armor would stop arrows, Odo would not have ascribed it to God. I'll accept Odo's story exactly as he wrote it. It was "by the will of God" that Louis's armor protected him, not to some quality of his armor to turn arrows. If we discount the reason given by Odo for this, we discount Odo's reliability, unless we can show some reason, either in this text, or from other sources describing the same incident, to discount the reasoning of Odo. I used this incident and the five accounts of it given here in Chapter 2 where I showed how not to document.

    Included in that same Email from Person One was the following:
    12a. 'At the assault on the gates of Bruges in the 1170's, hundreds of knights charged the gate all day, which was protected by spearmen and archers. The chronicler describes the knights taking the beating of the arrows until they couldn't stand it any more, and then turning back. Some were tougher than others and made it all the way to the gate, where the spears turned their horses away. The chronicler says that "by the Grace of God, no one was slain there." Maille was the armor there.'
    As received from Person Two, submission one.
    12b. 'Galbert of Bruges on the siege of Bruges (1127-1128)[attack on the gate of the town, protected by archers and infantry]: "By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds but not from bruises.." '
    This shows Person One again misplaced the date, but he is getting closer. He was only fifty years off this time, not one hundred. Now, as received from Person Two, submission two.
    12c. 'Galbert of Bruges on the seige of Bruges (1127-1128)[attack on the gate of the town, protected by archers and infantry]: "By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds from the arrows but not from bruises.." '
    This time, when Person Two falsified this quote, he added the words 'from the arrows' in the last quote. Based on the order of these accounts, the mis-spellings in the other accounts, and several other identifying characteristics, this was another 'cut and paste' from his earlier post. Then, again after a refutation was sent, Person Three sends, in his second submission:
    12d. 'Galbert of Bruges on the seige of Bruges (1127-1128)[attack on the gate of the town, protected by archers and infantry]:  "By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering." and "I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded." and "...as to those wearing an armor, they were exempted from wounds but not from bruises.." '
    This was also a 'cut and paste' from that common source. And again, he at least cut the unfalsified version.
    12. Refutation - "The Murder of Charles the Good" by Galbert of Bruges tells of three times large groups of armed men entered through the gates of the town. Quoting Galbert of Bruges on the siege at Bruges which started March 9, 1127 concerning the city gates, from Chapter 28 concerning March 9:
'Meanwhile Gervaise, violently pursuing them, went toward the west to the gate of the town, and there, after exchanging pledges of fidelity with the citizens, rushed in with a very strong band.'
    And again, quoting from Chapter 31:
'On March 11, Friday, Daniel, one of the peers of the realm; who before the betrayal of the count had been allied in strong friendship with the provost and his nephews, hastened to the siege together with Richard of Woumen, Thierry, castellan of the fortress of Dixmude, and Walter, butler of the count. And so each one of these barons had come with his whole following to avenge the death of his count and lord.  Now after meeting with our citizens, and also summoning all the leaders of the siege, they all took an oath, before they were permitted to enter the town, to respect as inviolate the area and property of the town out of consideration for the safety and welfare of our citizens.'
    And again, quoting from Chapter 33 concerning March 14 and 15:
'There was certainly a strong and enormous army of them. When they had reached the gates of the town, they dared to enter forcibly, but all the men of the siege, who ran up from the inside, resisted them face to face, and there would have been a general struggle if the wiser ones in both ranks had not come to terms. For, after giving and receiving hands, the men of Ghent pledged themselves by faith and swore an oath that they would join them in the siege and share fully their efforts and arms and counsels, while respecting the place and the property of our citizens, and that they would keep with them only their own men and those who were expert in fighting, and send the others away. Then the men of Ghent came in with a great crowd'
    Although it almost became a fight in the third entry, it did not quite come to that. So, of course, 'By the special grace of God no one died in this multitude which was entering.' or as was stated in the one early reference, 'by the Grace of God, no one was slain there.'. But Galbert does not use those words here or elsewhere in the text I found. Galbert does tell of conflict at the gates of the castle of Charles the Good, well inside of the town walls. The first incident, on March 9th, is described thus, 'Now a great tumult and clash of arms and thunder of shouts disturbed all the citizens who ran to arms and got ready; some who knew absolutely nothing about the pact prepared to defend the place and the town against Gervaise, while others, who did know about it, rushed to Gervaise with all their forces and chased the fleeing traitors back into the castle. When the citizens learned about the pact with Gervaise, sealed by his faith and oath, then for the first time they acted in unison, rushing over the castle-bridge against those who, on behalf of the traitors, were continuing to resist from the castle. At another bridge, which led toward the house of the provost, a great conflict took place in which they fought at close range with lances and swords. On a third bridge, which lay on the eastern side of the castle and led up to the very gates of the castle, such a fierce combat was going on that those who were inside, not able to bear the violence of the attack, broke the bridge and closed the gates on themselves.'
    Then, when the actual assault on the castle gate began, on March 12th, Galbert tells this story, 'On March 12, Saturday, the barons ordered all those who had settled down for the siege to attack the castle at every point where they had access to it. And so about noon the knights armed themselves together with the citizens and they made the circuit, setting fire to the gates of the castle, in this enterprise they burned a postern which stood near the house of the provost. But when they were attacking the main gates of the castle, where they had piled up dry hay and straw and summoned a knight to set fire to it, those who were advancing were overwhelmed by stones, sticks, lances, and arrows from within the castle. A great number were wounded by stones as large as millstones hurled from the battlements, and their helmets and shields were crushed so that they could scarcely flee in safety from the shelter of the gates under cover of which they were setting the fires. Therefore when anyone was hit by a store hurled from above, he suffered most grievous injury, regardless of his courage or strength, so that he fell prostrate and broken, dying or dead. In this conflict one squire outside expired, his heart pierced by an arrow. There was tumult and clamor on both sides, and heavy fighting, and the clash and clank of arms reverberated in the high vault of heaven. The fight was still going on at evening, and when those outside had gained nothing but death and destruction, they drew back from the walls and towers of the castle...'  It seems like there were people killed there, one even killed by an arrow through his heart. So this sort of blows the whole incident as an example of armor stopping arrows to bits, since the main contention given is that since no one was killed, the arrows must not have penetrated the armor. Note that in one quote given, people are described as being hit and wounded, and in another quote, they are described as being exempt from wounds. Unfortunately, Galbert does not write any of these words, although I did find a passage that 'almost' matches one of the quotes, the one that states, 'I could not begin to describe the crowd of those who were hit and wounded.', but Galbet tells it thus, referring to the assault on the church attached to the Castle on March 19th, where the besieged had finally been driven, 'For in the gallery the besieged had made defense posts for themselves out of chests and altar tables and choir seats and stools and other furniture of the church, and had tied them together with the ropes of the bells. They broke into pieces the bells and the leads which had formerly covered the roof of the church, using them to crush those below. Within the church, that is, the choir, the fight raged most fiercely, but from the tower and the doors of the tower such slaughter went on that I cannot describe or consider further the multitude of those who were struck down and wounded.'  Galbert describes this as a 'slaughter', and uses 'struck down', instead of 'hit', signifying they were killed. So this incident is not usable evidence for the idea of armor stopping arrows. The text cited by them does not even say what they claim it to say, nor does it show what they claim it to show. Not a single one of them even put the battle at the correct gate. Wonder if any one of them actually read Galbert.

    The next account I received from Person One was not sent by anyone else, though Person One, sometime later, clarified it a bit in an Email to the Missile Combat list in response to someone else's post there.
    13. 'Arrows against Steel by Hurley tells a story of knights "who had from 1-10 arrows in the back, and yet trudged on at ordinary pace and did not fall from their ranks...."
    King Richard rode into the Saracen host at Jaffa, and emerged with several arrows and a javelin hanging out of his maille shirt yet he was unharmed." '
    His clarification, received later, was, 'The one you may be referring to is from the Moslem leader Bo-ha-din
    On p.176-77 of Arrows Against Steel, by Hurley: "I noted among them (the Christians) men who had from 1-10 arrows in the back, and yet trudged on at ordinary pace and did not fall from their ranks...." '
    13. Refutation - Victor Hurley wrote "Arrows Against Steel", and lists the following sources as ones he consulted, according to a friend who found the book in a Library and sent me the following:
    'Here's the note from his preface relating to sources:
    "The following original sources were examined during the course of the writing of Arrows Against Steel.
Yuen Chao Pi-Shi 'Secret History of the Mongols', 1240, trans 1931
Juveini 'History of the World Conqueror', 13th C, trans 1862
Patkanoff 'History of the Mongols', Russian trans 13th C
'Travels of Marco Polo', 1299, various trans
Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo 'Embassy to Tamerlane', 1403, various trans
Carpini, Giovanni de Piano, 1245, Legate of Pope Innocent IV at the Court
of the Khan of Tartary
'History of Herodotus', 440BC, various trans
Thucydides 'History of the Peloponnesian War, c430BC, various trans
'Plutarch's Lives' c100AD, various trans
Xenophon 'Education of Cyrus', various trans
Publius Cornelius Tacitus 'Annals' c100AD
Titus Livius 'The History of Rome', c30BC
Ch'ang Ch'uns 'Journey to Jenghis Khan' 1888 English publication
Villehardouin 'Chronicle', 13thC
Joinville 'Chronicle', 1309
Jean Froissart 'Chronicle' late 14th C
Falvius Vegetius Renatus 'De Re Militari', 10th C manuscripts exist
Polybius, c130BC, various trans
Procopius, c520AD, Byz military history
Sun Tzu 'The Art of War', c500BC"
    The endnotes also reference:
"Byz Emperor Leo IV 'The Tactica' 886-912AD" '
    Hurley does not list Bo-ha-din as a source, so I forgot about Hurley, and instead concentrated on finding Bo-ha-din's work. Better a primary source than a secondary source who doesn't even list the primary source as one he used. What I eventually found was "What Befell Sultan Yusuf" by Abu el-Mehasan Yusef ibn-Rafi ibn-Temun el-Asadi ("The Life of Saladin" by Beha ed-Din, more commonly known as Bohadin), which I here quote from Chapter CXVII, entitled, "The Enemy March Upon Ascalon, Along the Shore of the Western Sea.
'The marksmen were posted in front, and the arrows shot by both sides fell thick as rain. The enemy had already formed in order of battle; the infantry, drawn up in front of the cavalry, stood firm as a wall, and every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them. They shot at us with their great arbalists, wounding the Moslem horses and their riders. I saw some with from one to ten arrows sticking in them, and still advancing at their ordinary pace without leaving the ranks.'
    I find Bohadin's account of "The Life of Saladin" to be a well written, detailed, factual, and very believable account of the period. There are a few minor problems with it, such as Bohadin's insistence on calling 'Guy de Lusignan' by the name of his brother 'Geoffrey'. And calling Frederick, Duke of Swabia, the 'King of the Germans'. But those minor problems certainly do not invalidate the work. And the story about the arrows seems to check out as being legitimately from Bohadin.
    The amount of detail Bohadin includes may make his 400 plus page book a bit hard to read, especially his manner of naming all the Moslems, frequently using not only their given names, but all the names, titles and other appellations. But, on the other hand, his frequent inclusion of dates (frequently converted to modern CE dates by the translators) for major, and sometimes minor, events certainly helps greatly in putting his whole story in perspective. This very attention to detail is what makes the above quote about the Franks continuing to advance with from one to ten arrows sticking in them such a good reference to arrows penetrating chain mail.
    "BUT WAIT!" You say, "I thought this was presented as an example of chain mail stopping arrows."
    And it is just that. It is an example of chain mail stopping arrows. It is, unless you look at this isolated incident in the general context of the whole book. Out of a six year conflict between Saladin and the Crusader States and European Crusaders, starting at the Battle of Hattin on July 1-3, 1187, and running until September 2, 1193, the armor worn DID stop arrows on this one day, September 1, 1191. I'm not going to quote the whole book, though. I would suggest you purchase the book and read it for yourself, as I did. It is not available on-line, YET. Since it is no longer in copyright, I plan on scanning it into my OCR (converts scanned text to word processor text) software and putting it on-line. But that is still quite a ways into the future. It is available for purchase online at http://IslamicBookstore.com. This is where I bought my copy.
    On this one single day of September 1, 1191, Bohadin, for the first and only time in his entire story, in Chapter CXVII, comments on the armor of the Franks. 'every foot-soldier wore a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them'. It is written as though such an occurrence was a surprise to the Moslems. On August 23, 1191, which was the last major battle before the day in question, the arrows were effective (Chapter CXVII). Bohadin describes the battle that day thus: 'A desperate encounter took place, and el-Melek el-Afdal, the Sultan's son, sent back to tell his father that he had cut off one division of the enemy in such a way as to prevent its receiving any support from the others, and that his men had attacked it so smartly that it had been obliged to retire in the direction of the camp.' While this specific passage does not mention arrows, the Moslem's major way of attacking was by mounted archers, with very few references to the Moslems engaging in 'hand-to-hand' combat in the whole of Bohadin's story, and just a couple of sentences later, Bohadin does mention arrows, saying that they would be wasted in following the division, which had now managed to regroup with the division in front of it. It seems to me that if the Moslems could cut off and force one-fifth of Richard's army to retreat, the arrows must have been doing something. On every other day previous to this, the arrows are shown as effective. So I can see why it seemed like the Moslems were surprised. What is missing before is any description of the armor being worn. If Bohadin had just described the Frankish armor as chain mail anywhere but this one time, I would have several more accounts for Chapter 3 about arrows penetrating chain mail.
    On the 7th of September, 1191, the arrows were effective, as evidenced by Bohadin's story (Chapter CXXI) of that day. 'On Saturday, the 14th of Sh'aban (September 7, 1191), the Sultan was informed that the enemy were marching on Arsuf. He mounted forthwith, and drew up his troops in order of battle, being resolved to come to close quarters with the enemy that day. The marksmen drawn from each battalion went out in advance, and rained a shower of arrows on the enemy, who were approaching the thichets and gardens of Arsuf. The Moslem troops harrassed them on every side, some advancing, led by the Sultan in person, others remaining in position to cover them in case of retreat. They charged the enemy furiously; the fire of war burst from the marksmen, and killed and wounded.'  Now there were some minor engagements on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, with very little detail given of them by Bohadin, but this was the next major battle after September 1. By the way, when the Franks used their Cavalry in an all-out charge, they threw the Moslems into confusion, leading to a rout of Saladin's forces. The Franks, fearing an ambush, withdrew, instead of pressing the attack. They were afraid, because that was a tactic Saladin had used on several occasions. Use his archers to kill them at a distance, until the Franks decided they either had to charge, or be picked off by arrows. Then, when they charged, the attacking Moslems would flee, and lead the Frankish Cavalry into a trap, usually of footmen who tried to simply overpower the Franks under the cover of archer's and take them prisoner. This was the same tactic the Moslems used on almost every one of the Crusades, and it worked repeatedly. Again, every other time after this, the arrows are shown as effective. Again what is missing is any description of the armor being worn. If Bohadin had described the Frankish armor as chain mail anywhere but this one time, I would again have several more accounts for Chapter 3 about arrows penetrating chain mail.
    But we can see from this above that this one day, September 1, is the only time during this almost half a month, encompassing three major battles, that the protective materials the Franks wore stopped the arrows. It is the only time in a six year struggle where the protective materials the Franks wore stopped the arrows. But it was not just chain mail, nor was it just chain mail over a 'padded' gambeson. Bohadin does not specify, but I believe the thick felt vests were worn over the chain mail, with the normal padding being worn under the mail. He had to see it to know it was being worn, and had it been under the chain mail, he probably wouldn't have been able to see it, as he was, by his own statements, not up close to the action. I have made felt. It requires almost no training, takes very little time, compared to other methods of providing protection, and can be made as thick and as hard and dense as you want. Thick hard felt is very difficult to puncture, even with something as thin and sharp as a needle, and is also almost cut proof, from either a chop, as in an axe strike, or in a slice, as in a sharp knife. It also provides excellent shock absorbing and spreading of impact. But it is almost totally impractical to wear in those thicknesses in the heat of September in the Middle East. In fact, it is fairly heavy and cumbersome any time, and if it gets wet, with rain or sweat, it gets really heavy fast. It was an experiment they tried. 'The operation was a success, but the patient died', as the saying goes. It worked to keep the arrows from killing, but it just wasn't worth the other problems of heat, weight, encumberance, etc., so they abandoned the idea. While this account is a plus for the side claiming chain mail would stop arrows, it is not an absolute proof, but is, at best, somewhat questionable because of the addition of the words 'thick felt vests'.
    There is still one more 'account' provided above, supposedly from Hurley, supposedly ascribed by him to Bo-ha-din. That is, 'King Richard rode into the Saracen host at Jaffa, and emerged with several arrows and a javelin hanging out of his maille shirt yet he was unharmed." '
    Bohadin does not have this account in his book. In fact, he tells a story of Richard at Jaffa (Chapter CLXVI) thus, 'I have been assured by men who were there, that on that day the king of England, lance in hand, rode along the whole length of our army from right to left, and not one of our soldiers left the ranks to attack him.' Quite a different story than his riding INTO the host and emerging with arrows and a javelin sticking out of him, isn't it? And that account from Bohadin's text is the only account in the whole text that even comes close to what was presented. Again, I wonder if Bohadin was actually read by the person who sent this in. Perhaps, if he had, he would have found the 'other' reference Bohadin has to arrows having no effect.
    Quoting from Chapter CIX, 'One of the Moslems, who had leapt the trenches, reported that he had seen a man, a Frank of enormous stature, who, all alone on the top of the parapet, was holding the Moslems at bay by his own unaided strength; his comrades stood on either side and handed him stones, which he hurled down at our men as they advanced to the scarp. 'This man,'  said he, 'had been struck by more than fifty arrows and stones, but nothing distracted him from his work. He kept on fighting and driving back the men who were coming on, until at last he was burnt alive by a bottle of naptha, hurled at him by one of our pyrotechnists.' '  This was on July 2 or 3 of 1191. Now, if Bohadin had only indicated what type of armor and/or other protective gear this Frank of enormous stature was wearing, it might be usable to show his chain mail stopping arrows. But, like I said before, the only time Bohadin describes the Frankish armor is on that one day of September 1, 1191, where it is shown being worn in conjuction with thick felt vests. The next account will justify my belief about the texts not being read, I think.

    Also included in that Email from Person One, was the following account:
    14a. 'Cattalan Vengeance gives numerous examples of the members of the Grand Cattalan Company discarding their armor, typically mail, once the threat of enemy archers was eliminated. I think you'll agree they would hardly have worn it if it could not stop the missiles.'
    Person One later identifed this text a bit thus:
    14b. 'Cattalan Vengance is the title of the Chronicles of the Grand Cattalan Company written in the early 14th Century. I don't recall the author's name at the moment, but he was a Chronicler with the Company at the time. It's been translated into English, and good university libraries will have a copy. I think a search with Alfonso Lowe as the Author will bring it up, but he may just be the translator.'
    14 -Refutation - Person One, who sent in these two references to this text, has a persona as a Catalan who is supposedly a member of the Grand Catalan Company, so I would think he might have done some actual research on this mercenary company. The title of the text is "The Catalan vengeance". No, that small 'v' is not a typo. It is a modern work by Alfonso Lowe about the Grand Catalan Company, not a translation of a 14th century chronicle of the company. I got this information from the Main Branch of the Houston Public Library. They didn't have a copy, but it had the wrong Dewey Decimal number to be a period translation. When the librarian saw the Dewey Decimal number while checking for a possible inter-library loan, after I told her it was supposed to be a translation, she almost laughed. She gave a whole list of reasons how she could be absolutely sure it was not a translation, but the number alone was enought to convince her. She's the expert in the field of Library Science, not me, so I'll take her word for it. So, either Person One has read the book, and thereby knows it is not a translation, or he has not read the book and thereby doesn't know what it contains. Either way, this claim of it being a translation of a period text is still a falsification, it is just not provable as a deliberate one. Now, look at the actual story he tells. The Grand Catalan Company, once the threat of enemy archers was elimininated, discarded their armor during battle??? The book may say that. The book may not say that. But the story itself seems too far-fetched for me to waste my time trying to chase a lead based on falsified information, especially when the supplier of that falsified information previously missed one date by a hundred years, a second date by fifty years, and has given quotes and stories that are not contained in the original sources to which he refers. He blew his first reference, missing the date by 100 years, making it a different Louis on a different crusade, blew his second reference by missing the date by 50 years, telling a stry that didn't happen, and even provided a "quote" that doesn't exist. He got lucky one time, on Bohadin, from Hurley, but blew it again on the second "quote", which also does not exist, and totally missed a reference in the same text that is as good as the one he sent. By the way, I found "The Catalan vengeance", by Alfonso Lowe, available "used", through Amazon, for just under $50.00. Buy it if you want. I'm not going to do so. But that now ends all of the information I received from Person One, so we will now continue with information sent by Person Two, and Person Three.

    Sent from Person Two, submission one:
    15a. 'From Joinville (mid 13th century), referring to the day following his being wounded in five places and his horse in fifteen by Saracen darts: "I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'.
    My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the wounds we had received."
    It seems the padded jackets were enough protection in this emergency, and that they could have fared even better against the enemy had they been able to wear their hauberks.'
    Sent from Person Two, submission two:
    15b. 'From Joinville (mid 13th century), referring to the day following his being wounded in five places and his horse in fifteen by Saracen arrows: "I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'.
    My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the small wounds we had received."
    It seems the padded jackets were enough protection in this emergency, and that they could have fared even better against the enemy had they  been able to wear their hauberks.'
Sent from Person Three, submission two:
    15c. 'From Joinville (mid 13th century), referring to the day following his being wounded in five places and his horse in fifteen by Saracen darts:  "I got up, threw a quilted tunic over my back, clapped a steel cap on my head, and shouted out to our sergeants: 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'.
    My knights gathered round me, all wounded as they were, and we drove the Saracen sergeants away from our own machines and back toward a great body of mounted Turks who had stationed themselves quite close to the ones we had taken from them. I sent to the king for help, for neither I nor my knights could put on our hauberks because of the wounds we had received."
    It seems the padded jackets were enough protection in this emergency, and that they could have fared even better against the enemy had they been able to wear their hauberks.'
    It will be noticed that in 15b, as twice before, Person Two changed a quote by deleting words (11c.), or adding a word within the quote (12c). This is falsification. The word  added is 'small', in the last line of the quote. He also changed a word in the introductory part of this account, changing 'darts' to 'arrows', but that is not necessarily a falsification. All three entries share a common source, as evidenced by 'by Saint Nicholas, they shall not stay here!'., which ends with an exclamation point, single quotation mark and period. And they were all three contained in posts with various other typos and other identifying items in the same places in the posts.
    15 Refutation - First, the quote, as I found it in "The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville: A New English Version" by Ethel Wedgwood: 'I got up, and slipped a tunic over my shoulders, and clapped an iron cap on my head, and cried to our serjeants: "By Saint Nicholas! they shall not stay here!"
    My knights joined me, all wounded as they were; and we drove the Saracen serjeants out from among the engines, and back onto a large squadron of mounted Turks, who were close to the engines we had captured. I sent to the King asking for help, for neither I nor my knights were able to put on hauberks, because of the wounds we had received; and the King sent us my Lord Walter of Châtillon, who placed himself in front, between us and the Turks.'
    Okay, that is close enough to 15a and 15c to see that they are both legitimate quotes. Different translator perhaps, but still the same basic information. I read the account of Joinville where he got wounded five times and his horse fifteen earlier that same day, not the day before. He says the wounds were caused by 'fire-darts', in the translation I have.
    This account given above specifically says he was not wearing armor, other than an iron cap. So this account is totally inapplicable to armor of any kind stopping arrows, or to arrows penetrating armor of any kind. The account where he got wounded five times would be applicable to arrows penetrating armor, if Joinville had stated he had been wounded by arrows, but my translation says otherwise, so I didn't use it.

    Sent from Person Two, submission one:
    16a. 'From an English chronicle of the Battle of Poitiers : "Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards.."'
    Sent from Person Two, submission two:
   16b. 'From an English chronicle of the Battle of Poitiers (1356): "Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards.."'
    Sent from Person Three, submission two:
   16c. 'From an English chronicle of the Battle of Poitiers (1356): "Our bowmen of the vanguard stood safely in the marsh, lest the horsemen should attack them, yet even so those did prevail there somewhat. For the horsemen, as has been said, had the special purpose of overrunning the archers, and of protecting their army from the arrows. Standing near their own men they faced the archers with their chests so solidly protected with plate and mail and leather shields, that the arrows were either fended off directly or broken in pieces by the hard objects or were diverted upwards.."'
    16. Refutation - First, let me say I'm surprised. Person Two only adds the date 1356 to this account in his second submission, and changes nothing and leaves nothing out. I notice Person Three adds the same date. But such an addition is perfectly permissible, as it is not part of a quote. Again, a common source is indicated, as evidenced by the double period at the end. The opening and closing single quotation marks are mine. However, this account, totally unidentified as to text name and author's name, is disqualified, not because it is unidentified, but because, as stated, it refers to plate armor used with chain mail, and does not specify which of the three protective methods were doing the protecting, the plate, the mail, or the shields.

    Continuing on, but this time without any references sent by Person Three. Sent only from Person Two, submission one:
    17a. 'Joinville, his account of the battle of Monsourah, speaks of receiving five arrow wounds and continuing to fight, many of his knights also received multiple arrow wounds and continued fighting. He removes the several arrows from his maille so he can remove the haubergeon and his gambeson to have his minor wounds cleaned and then re-dons his armour to rejoin the battle. The only mention in his chronicle of a knight who was killed by archery describes the wound as being in the exposed throat.'
    Sent from Person Two, submission two:
    17b. 'Joinville, his account of the battle of Monsourah, speaks of receiving five arrow wounds and continuing to fight, many of his knights also received multiple arrow wounds and continued fighting. He removes the several arrows from his maille so he can remove the haubergeon and his gambeson to have his minor wounds cleaned and then re-dons his armour to rejoin the battle. The only mention in his chronicle of a knight who was killed by archery describes the wound as being in the exposed throat.'
    17 Refutation - Oh, so close, but yet so far away! It would surely help them make their case if the persons who send in documentation actually read the books to which they refer, instead of taking someone else's word for what they say. Person Two (we have already seen the same thing about Person One) seems not to have read the actual accounts from Joinville. But at least, he didn't use any quotes he had to falsify this time. I would quote "The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville: A New English Version" by Ethel Wedgwood, about all of Joinville's accounts of his participation at Mansoora, but it is too long, spanning several chapters. What I will do is tell of when Joinville got wounded five times. This is in Chapter X, by the way, entitled, "The  Battle of Mansoora". which is a town on the Nile in Egypt:
    'In front of us were two of the King's serjeants, one of whom was named William of Boon, and the other John of Gamaches. Those Turks who were between the brook and the river brought up peasants on foot, who pelted these two serjeants with clods of earth; but they could never get them to attack us ourselves. Finally, they brought up a peasant, who threw Greek fire at them thrice. Once William of Boon caught the vessel of Greek fire on his buckler, for if it had set light to anything on him, he would have been burnt. We were all covered with the fire-darts that missed the serjeants. By good luck, I found a Saracen's oakum tunic; and I turned the split side towards me, and made a shield of the tunic, which served me in good stead, for their fire-darts only wounded me in five places and my pony in fifteen. It chanced too, that one of my burghers from Joinville brought me a banner with an iron spear-head; and every time that we saw them crowding on the serjeants, we charged them, and they fled. By this time the good Count of Soissons was beginning to joke with me and to say: "Seneschal, let these hounds yelp; for, by God's head cloth! (which was his favourite oath) we shall yet talk over this day in the ladies' bowers."
   In the evening, just as the sun was setting, the Constable brought us the King's cross-bowmen on foot, and they ranged themselves in front of us; and when the Saracens saw our feet in the stirrups of the cross-bows, they fled.'
    The earlier reference to Joinville, account Number 15, happens later this night, not the next day, as described in Numbers 15a, 15b, and 15c. It is also at this location, but days later, just before Joinville is captured, that account Number 8, in Chapter 3 of my study, happened. The only thing in Joinville's account about him in battle at Mansoora that matches the above story is his being wounded five times. I could stop my refutation right here. The story above simply did not happen, or at least Joinville's accounts do not tell of it happening. So it is just a made-up (false) story instead of a deliberately falsified quote.
    But I do know what the base for this story actually is, because I have read Joinville. In all fairness, I'll tell what really happened, according to Joinville. In Chapter XVII, we find this story happening in Mansoora, after the King has been captured and taken there.
    'First of all I will tell you about my Lord Walter of Châtillon: how a knight named Lord John of Monson, told me that he saw my lord of Châtillon in the walled village where the King was taken. A street ran straight through the village, so that one could see the fields on either side. In this street was my Lord Walter of Châtillon with his naked sword in his hand. As often as he saw the Turks entering this street, he charged upon them, sword in hand, and hustled them out of the place; and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him with darts. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the darts that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again; stand up in his stirrups, and brandishing his sword at arm's length cry, "Châtillon! knights! where are my paladins? " Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described.'
    This has a few more of the elements of the story of Person Two, but not all, and it is not Joinville it is happening to. The weapons used are described as 'darts' not 'arrows', and in the battle of Mansoora, Joinville says: 'And know, that there was a patch of ground behind the Templars, the size of a day's work, so covered with the darts that the Saracens had thrown, that the soil could not be seen for the density of them.', which indicates these could have been just what he called them, 'darts', possibly meaning hand thrown darts, not arrows shot from bows. Joinville does comment about the 'Turks' ability to shoot backwards as well as forwards, but does not specify that these darts were shot.  Note also that Walter takes off his "coat-of-arms", not his armor and gambeson.  Joinville, again referring to this engagement in and around Mansoora, describes a 'coat-of-arms' thus: 'These things took place on the first day of Lent. On that same day, a valiant Saracen whom the enemy had made captain instead of Scecedin the son of Seic, whom they had lost in the battle of Shrove Tuesday, took the coat belonging to the Count of Artois, who had died in that battle, and showed it to all the host of the Saracens, and told them: It was the King's coat-of-arms and that he was dead. " And this I show you " said he, " because a body without a head is in no wise to be feared, neither a people without a King.'
    I can even identify where he may have gotten the idea of the Knight dying from an arrow wound to the exposed throat. Referring to the death of Walter, Joinville has this to say: 'Only Lord John Frumons, that good knight, told me that, when they were leading him away prisoner to Mansoora, he met a Turk who was riding Lord Walter of Châtillon's horse, and the horse's crupper was all bloody. And he asked the Turk what he had done with him whose horse it was; and the Turk answered, that he had cut his throat on horseback, as might be seen from the crupper that was all covered with the blood.'
    Of course, since Joinville does tell about a Knight dying from being shot in the throat, in Syria, much later, but by a crossbow quarrel, not an arrow, he could possibly have been referring to that instance, 'In the retreat of the Teutons, the Saracens wounded a knight of mine, named Lord John of Bussy, with a quarrel through the throat; and he fell right in front of me.'
    Joinville does not say the throat was exposed, but I'll give on that point. But Person Two is correct in that this is the only time in Joinville's memoirs that he specifically tells of a knight killed by archery. He hints at it all through the stories, as he indicates lots of deaths, and indicates archery being the main method of combat by the 'Turks'. So none of this from Joinville actually shows chain mail armor stopping arrows as claimed, and the story that is claimed to exist simply didn't happen in Joinville's account. So this time, instead of falsifying quotes, he falsifies the whole story, by taking elements out of several incidents and blending them together. Again, I don't think the persons sending me these accounts are actually reading the books.

    The next account was also sent by Person Two, in his submission one
    18. 'Villehardouin, in his account of attacking the Cumans who were horse archers, speaks of the horses being wounded but no mention of the knights who rode them being wounded, and none listed as being killed. These from the horsebow which was far more powerful than the European bows of the same period. It was after the French had installed their Emperor in Constantinople when the Wallachians were attacking them with Cuman auxilliary horse archers.'
    Person Two, in his second submission, sent this again, but without changes, except to leave off the last sentence, so I'll not repeat it this time.
    18 Refutation - I'm not sure which of Villehardouin's accounts he means here, so I'll give all of them, and refute them all together.
    The first account is when Johannizza, King of Wallachia comes to relieve Adrianople, 'Thus they remained till the Wednesday of Easter week, and Johannizza had by that time approached so near that he encamped at about five leagues from us. And he sent his Comans running before our camp, and a cry was raised throughout the camp, and our men issued therefrom helterskelter, and pursued the Comans for a full league very foolishly; for when they wished to return, the Comans began to shoot at them in grievous wise, and wounded a good many of their horses.
    So our men returned to the camp, and the barons were summoned to the quarters of the Emperor Baldwin. And they took counsel, and all said that they had dealt foolishly in thus pursuing people who were so lightly armed.'
    The above was on Wednesday of Easter week. The next account is when the Crusaders are defeated and Baldwin is taken prisoner on Thursday of that week, 'Count Louis went out first with his battalion, and began to follow after the Comans, and sent to urge the emperor to come after him. Alas! how ill did they keep to what had been settled the night before! For they ran in pursuit of the Comans for at least two leagues, and joined issue with them, and chased them a long space. And then the Comans turned back upon them, and began to cry out and to shoot.
    On our side there were battalions made up of other people than knights, people having too little knowledge of arms, and they began to wax afraid and be discomfited. And Count Louis, who had been the first to attack, was wounded in two places full sorely; and the Comans and Wallachians began to invade our ranks; and the count had fallen, and one of his knights, whose name was John of Friaise, dismounted, and set him on his horse.'
    The next account in when the Franks are defeated near Rusium, 'And the Comans and Wallachians and Greeks pressed them very hard, and wounded many of their horses. Loud were the cries and fierce the onslaught, so that by main force and pure distress they drove the rear-guard back on the battalion of Andrew of Urboise and John of Choisy; and in this manner the Franks retreated, suffering greatly.
    The enemy renewed their onslaught so fiercely that they drove the Franks who were nearest to them back on the battalion of Thierri of Tenremonde, the constable. Nor was it long before they drove them back still further on to the battalions led by Charles of the Frêne. And now the Franks had retreated, sore harassed, till they were within half a mile of Rusium. And the others ever pressed upon them more hardily; and the battle went sore against them, and many were wounded, and of their horses. So, as God will suffer misadventures, they could endure no further, but were discomfited; for they were heavily armed, and their enemies lightly; and the latter began to slaughter them.
    Alas! well might Christendom rue that day! For of all those six score knights did not more than ten escape who were not killed or taken; and those who escaped came flying into Rusium, and rejoined their own people. There was slain Thierri of Tenremonde, the constable, Orri of l'Isle, who was a good knight and highly esteemed, and John of Pompone, Andrew of Urboise, John of Choisy, Guy of Conflans, Charles of the Frêne, Villain the brother of Thierri the seneschal. '
    The first account does fit exactly what was claimed. But the second account has Count Louis wounded twice before the Comans and Wallachians engaged in close combat ('began to invade our ranks'), so it must have been at a distance, like from arrows, and it does say the Comans were shooting. The third account tells of both men and horses being wounded. Also, the Comans, Wallachians, and Greeks are characterized as being 'lightly armed', which is the way he described the Coman horse archers a bit earlier in the text, referring only not to their armor, but their weapons. And here, they 'began to slaughter' the heavily armed (or armored) Franks. Notice that it states they drove the Franks 'nearest' them back, not the Franks they were engaged in combat with. So again, everything here points to this being horse archers against armored Knights, and the Knights are getting slaughtered. No mention of the Knights being wounded? No listing of any being killed? That's not what I read, except in the first account. I would have used these second two to show arrows penetrating chain mail, except that Villehardouin does not say they were armored, or if they were, how. Heavily armed, yes. And that could mean armor or weapons, so I'm not going to use them to support my side of the debate, but they sure don't support the other side. Even in the first account, where only horses are wounded, the quote does not say a single person was hit with an arrow. No arrow hitting, no armor stopping the arrows. Anything else is just a surmise.

    From Person Two, submission two
    19. 'From a published article called..."the Physics of Medieval Archery"
    "The obvious question now is what would such an arrow have been capable of doing? Most of the soldiers at whom these heavy war arrows were directed would have been wearing armour. At the time of Agincourt, a typical suit of armour had a mass of between 30 and 45 kg and was made of wrought iron, which is rather soft. Obviously, carrying this extra mass was a great inconvenience to the soldier inside the armour, and, to try to keep the mass down, the thickness of the armour varied according to the part of the body being protected. The thickest armour was up to 4 mm thick, and the thinnest about 1 mm. Experiments (not using live-targets!) suggest that, while arrows would easily penetrate 1 mm of armour, the vital areas of the body would have been very unlikely to be hit. Probably the effect of a massive hail of fast-moving heavy arrows, such as the French encountered at Agincourt, would have been to cause very many disabling injuries, but perhaps only one arrow in a hundred would have killed the man it struck. Naturally, the chance of an unarmoured man surviving a blow from such an arrow would have been very much less." '
    19 Refutation - Who wrote it? Who published it? When? In what publication was this article? What were his sources? And this article is obviously about plate armor, not chain mail, so needs no further refutation, nor consideration. The only other thing I received from Person Two was the refutation to Geraldus Cambrensis's work I used in Chapter 3, which I gave there, and defended against there. Since you have probably already read this refutation, remember, it is Person Two, the person who resorts to falsification of his own documentation, who is questioning Geraldus's "reliability".

    Now, to start on accounts I received only from one source, Person Three. This is from the first set of accounts I received done by him.
    20. 'The Supposed Invincibility of the English Archers at Agincourt Contrary to popular ideas, English arrows were not very effective against plate armor at the time of Agincourt.  Arrows would penetrate the arm and leg armor with a reasonably direct hit from close range, but would be ineffective against the head or body.  Reference:  Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." Materials Characterization, vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992).  [A periodical published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010.  Be prepared for some serious metallurgy.]'
    20. Refutation - I received the following from a friend: 'Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." Materials Characterization, vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992).
    This research included metalurgical analysis of armor and arrow from a number of museum collections including the Tower of London collection.  The author notes that mail was ineffective against longbows and that mail was the "principal protection worn by the French cavalry at Crecy" in 1346, but that plate armour was in wide use by the time of Agincourt in 1415, the last great victory of the longbow.
    The author notes that though out the period of the Hundred Years War the quality of armor improves dramatically.  In the early 1400's the armor samples exhibited a typical Vickers hardness of 100-140 and by 1550 the quality had increased to a Vickers hardness of around 3240-250.  Bodkins though out the period had a hardness of around 350.  Plate armor of the period ranged in thickness from about 1.2mm to 4.5mm with the thinner armor on the arms and legs with the ticker armor on the head and torso.
    Bodkins of period design were constructed out of the determined materials and they were fired at appropriate metal plates in a thickness of 1mm, 2mm, and 3mm.  They were fired from a 70# yew longbow at a range of 10 meters. The bow is probably at the low end of the range that what would have been used in combat during this period but it was also shot at a much closer range.  Penetration was achieved on the 1mm thickness plate when shot straight on or at angles up to 20 degrees but no useful penetrations were achieved on 2mm or 3mm plates.
    The author concluded that; "These results indicate that the pattern of damage inflicted on an advance of armored infantry at the Battle of Agincourt would have been one of many disabling wounds [esp. to the arms and legs] and few fatalities. ... It also shows that in the earlier battles (Crecy in 1346 and Poitiers in 1356) the longbow would have been extremely lethal and that in later battles, when armor had been further improved, it would become marginal."
    This paper represents serious research published in a very reputable scientific journal.  I am convinced that very good plate from late period clearly did provide excellent protection against arrows'  This came in over a month before the reference to Jones by Person Three, so was not meant as a refutation of him. The provider and I were having a 'discussion' on plate armor, and he sent this to me to demonstrate a point. I do not have access to this periodical, but I am going to assume both these people do have such access. By the second (first received) reference to Jones, we see this is mostly about plate armor, not chain mail. And the first reference had no quote about chain mail stopping arrows, but only referred to plate also, so this is inapplicable.

    The next submission was sent from Person Three, submission one, but I'm not sure it was really supposed to be documentation showing chain mail stopping arrows. Just in case, I'll give it, and refute it.
    21. 'Does this mean that the English archers were ineffective?  Not at all.  They were devastating against foot soldiers, and even the knights were at severe risk, as their horses couldn't carry enough armor to protect them at all. Knights were very protective of their horses.  See Henry V, Act III, Scene VII, where the French are trading boasts about the battle to come.'
    21 Refutation - Right! This is a reference to Shakespeare. But since how protective French Knights were of their horses has little to do with armor or arrows, it is also inapplicable to the point under discussion.

    Also from Person Three, submission one.
    22. 'An accounting of the battle of Agincourt:
    Henry laid out his forces in the traditional English fashion, with men-at-arms flanked by wedges of archers, protected by large pointed stakes. (Horses won't charge at big pointy things.)  The archers at the ends of the lines were positioned forward from the rest of the troops to give covering fire along the main front.  This is an excellent defensive position, but it gives very little scope for attack.
    After the forces were arranged, they sat and stared at each other for four hours.  The English had no desire to attack, and the French were presumably not pleased at the idea of wading through a mile of mud.
    About 11 AM, as some of the French were sending their servants back to camp to bring lunch, Henry decided to force the issue.  He ordered his troops to move the line forward, and to reset the positions within extreme longbow range from the French lines.  He didn't have enough men-at-arms to form a reserve or to guard the camp.  This was to have dramatic consequences later on.
    As Henry had planned, the first volley of arrows goaded the French into attacking.  The first attack was from the mounted knights on the flanks of the French position, intending to overrun the longbowmen protecting the English flanks.  It was a disaster.  While an English arrow would not normally penetrate a knight's plate armor, a horse cannot carry enough armor to be effective.  Wounded horses threw their riders into the mud and trampled through the close-packed ranks of French foot soldiers.  They also churned up the mud in front of the English positions, making things more difficult for future French attacks.
    A brief bibliography;
    Hibbert, Christopher, Agincourt, Dorset Press, 1978, ISBN 0-88029-054-4.  A somewhat (ahem!) imaginative description of Henry and the battle.  Contains a lot of information about the events surrounding the battle, such as the siege of Harfleur and Henry's march to Calais.  Appendices contain the complete text of Henry's Ordinances of War and Challenge to the Dauphin. Some interesting but not overly useful illustrations.  Wildly pro-English viewpoint.
    Peter N. Jones, The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages.  "Materials Characterization", vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992).  This is a periodical published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010.  Heavy metallurgy.
    Stuart, Desmond, The Hundred Years War; the English in France 1337-1453; Atheneum, New York, 1978, ISBN 0-689-10919-9.  General overview of the Hundred Years War, with emphasis on personality issues.  Generally favors the French view.'
    22. Refutation - This seems to be Person Three's version of Agincourt, based on the versions contained in the three referenced modern texts. Person Three throws Hibbert's text into question himself, so I don't have to do so. But this story seems to be just about the way I understood the battle went from my own reading. However, since the only armor he mentions is plate, this story is also inapplicable to the issue of chain mail and arrows. There is not a single quote contained in this story., so there is no source document to refute. The bibliography he gave, to three modern texts, would have been so much better if he had read the bibliographies in those three texts, had gone to those source documents and read them to extract quotes that might apply, and then had given these source texts in a bibliography. But he didn't do this. No source documents, no 'documentation'.
    Earlier, I gave several accounts drawn from Person Three's second submission, where he had simply repeated items from a common source used for also Person Two's accounts. Now I will cover the rest of Person Three's second submission, and give the items I had not received from others.

    From Person Three, submission two:
    23. 'However, recently two military historians, John Keegan and Claude Gaier, have cast doubt upon the thesis of the English longbow "invincibility."  In particular, Keegan, in a study of the battle of Agincourt, has shown the tactical use of English archers at this battle, and, for that matter, in all of the battles since the beginning of the fourteenth century, with the longbowmen either skirmishing in a "shoot-out" with their opponents' archers or flanking their infantry troops, could not have caused the losses of life attributed to them by historians.  In fact, there is little evidence that the longbowmen, needing to fire with an extremely steep arc to cover the distance between themselves and the enemy and thus unable to penetrate their opponents' armor, did any more damage than the killing of a few horses and the wounding of even fewer men.  While the archers did not kill many men, however, they did harass their enemy to such an extent that they broke into a disordered charge, a charge narrowed by continual flanking fire until it reached and stopped at the solid infantry line.  This then caused the victory-not the archery fire itself, but the archery-induced disordered charge into a solid infantry line, which was neither penetrated nor defeated. (Devries, Kelly, Medieval Military Technology, Broadview Press, 1992, p. 38)'
    23. Refutation - Again, these are his words, evidently drawn from the modern work of the two named individuals, as it appears in the modern work of a third individual. At least, there are no quotation marks to distinguish it as a quote, from a period text, from Keegan or Gaier, or from Devries. But again, since what he sent does not mention chain mail at all, nor any reference to any period text, it is again inapplicable to chain mail and arrows. No source documents, no 'documentation'.

    Another item (actually four items) from Person Three, submission one:
    24. 'Infantry Warfare:
    Bannockburn:  English and Scottish archers also engaged in the battle.  But htye had very little effect, at least according to John Barbour, who is the only source which mentions their participation in detail: the Scottish archers only annoyed the English cavalry, while the English archers might have been more effective had not Robert Bruce sent a contingent of horsed warriors . to successfully disperse them (p. 81)
    Boroughbridge:  The Earl [of Lancaster's] cavalry, when they tried to cross the water, could not enter it because of the number and density of arrows which the archers discharged into them and their horses.  No one appears to have been killed by the archery assault, but progress was slowed and confused.(p. 96)
    Dupplin Moor:  The infantry was greatly aided by the archers on their flanks.  It seems that most of the Scottish soldiers either wore no helmets or helmets unequipped with visors, and that the disinherited archers.'blinded and wounded the faces of the first division of the Scots by an incessant discharge of arrows.'  This may have caused little death, but in fact is so disrupted the Scots that their attacks fell on the infantry with disarray and confusion. (p. 119)
    Halidon Hill:  The archers again played a role in this defeat.  As at Dupplin Moor they attacked the Scots as they rushed into the infantry lines, and they continued to fire into their flanks and rear as the fight continued.  In this, as at Duplin Moor, they blinded many of the Scots, creating disorder in their ranks and adding to the slaughter.  The Lanercrost chronicler writes:  "Now the Scots approaching in the first division were so grievously wounded in the face and blinded by the host of English archery, just as they had been formerly at Glendenmore (Dupplin Moor), that they were helpless, and quickly began to turn away their faces from the arrow flights and to fall." (p. 124)  Further:  It was at this point in the two battles when the archers made their presence felt. Although it may be too much to say, as Jonathon Sumption does, that these battles 'were [both] won by the archers,' the archers did play a major role in the battle, although not the one - as a decisive killing machine - which has been bestowed on them traditionally by scholars.  (Sumption is in error on pp. 125-26 in describing 'some thousands of Scots [dying] of arrow wounds.'  There is no record of this in the contemporary battlefield narratives.  (p.127)'
    24. Refutation - First, John Barbour's romantic poem, "The Bruce", glorifying Robert the Bruce, was written by a man who was not born until six years after the battle of Bannockburn, and was not written until sixty-four years after the battle. I could find no copy of it online, nor for sale, in an English translation. I found what I believe may be a copy online in the original Scots, but since I don't read Scots, I'm not even sure about that. But my search did turn up the following information 'about' the poem. According to "The Columbia Encyclopedia" at Bartleby.com, it is a romance, not history, and was probably done as a commissioned work by Barbour for King Robert II, as evidenced by payments ordered from the treasury of Aberdeen by the King to Barbour very soon afterwards. I did not continue the search indefinately to see if I could purchase an English translation of a 'romantic poem' (like "The Lay of The Cid" or "The Song of Roland") to look up historical 'details', based on this Columbia information. None of this means that Barbour's 'details' are wrong, just questionable, because we don't know his 'source' for these details when he was writing 64 years after the fact.
    I searched for "Lanercrost Chronicle", and Google had no references to that spelling of it. But they did ask if I meant "Lanercost Chronicle" (without the 'r'), so I checked this out. "The Chronicle of Lanercost" was translated into English by Sir Herbert Maxwell in 1913, and there is a project underway at the University of Durham to do a new translation, but this is not completed. I did find a few 'excerpts' from Maxwell's translation on-line, but what I could not find was a full copy of it, on-line, or available to purchase. I used BookFinder.com, and their search of 50,000 booksellers failed to turn up a single copy available. I also discovered it had been translated by Joseph Stevenson, but again, BookFinder.com could not find a single copy of this more recent translation either. I also checked Amazon.com, and AllBookStores.com, and could not find a copy of either translation.
    The most complete excerpt I found was the one on The Society for Medieval Military History website, which does cover the Battle at Bannockburn, as well as Haltwhistle, Tynedale, Corbridge, the valleys of North and South Tyne, the monastery of Lanercost, Norham, Hexham and Corbridge, Durham, Berwick, St John, [Perth], Roxburgh Castle, Edinburgh Castle, Stirling, and Carlisle, before Bannockburn was fought, and Bothwell Castle, Stanemoor, Brough, Appleby, Kirkoswald, Gillesland, the invasion of Ireland by Robert the Bruce, Hartlepool, Carlisle (again), Berwick (again), Richmond, and another invasion of Ireland after Bannockburn. This excerpt does not cover Bouroughbridge, Dupplin Moor or Halidon Hill.. But I also found in my searches a reference to "Scalacronica" by Sir Thomas Gray, also translated by Sir Herbert Maxwell, (Glasgow, 1907). A search like before did not turn up a single copy for sale, (50,000 plus booksellers), nor an on-line version, except the one I found on The Society for Medieval Military History website, which I believe is just an excerpt also. Durham University is also working on a complete translation of "Scalacronica", but it is not finished. By the way, Maxwell's translation of "Scalacronica" is only a partial translation, not the complete text.
    In all of the excerpts of these two texts I could find, there are no references to arrows penetrating armor, or armor resisting arrows. The passages from them concerning arrows and archers are:
    "Scalacronica" - 'The castles of Roxburgh and Edinburgh were captured and dismantled, which castles were in the custody of foreigners, Roxburgh [being] in charge of Guillemyng Fenygges, a knight of Burgundy, from whom James de Douglas captured the said castle upon the night of Shrove Tuesday, the said William being slain by an arrow as he was defending the great tower.'
    "Scalacronica" - 'The constable, Roger de Horsley, lost there an eye by an arrow.'
    "Lanercost" - 'On every day of the siege they assaulted one of the three gates of the city, sometimes all three at once; but never without loss, because there were discharged upon them from the walls such dense volleys of darts and arrows, likewise stones, that they asked one another whether stones bred and multiplied within the walls.'
    "Lanercost" - 'There they set up long ladders rich (sic) they climbed, and the bowmen, whereof they had a great amber (sic), shot their arrows thickly to prevent anyone showing his head above the wall. But, blessed be God! they met with such resistance there as threw them to the ground with their ladders, so that there and elsewhere round the wall some were killed, others taken prisoners and others wounded; yet throughout the whole siege no Englishman was killed, save one man only who was struck by an arrow (and except the man above mentioned), and few were wounded.'
    "Lanercost" (about Bannockburn) - 'On the morrow an evil, miserable and calamitous day for the English; when both sides had made themselves ready for battle, the English archers were thrown forward before the line, and the Scottish archers engaged them, a few being killed and wounded on either side; but the King of England's archers quickly put the others to flight.'
    No Medieval texts, or even excerpts, were found on-line or for purchase that detailed the other three battles mentioned. I found references to those battles, but the only Medieval texts referenced for any one of the four of them are "The Bruce", "The Lanercost Chronicle" and "Scalacronica". There may be more out there, but that's all I found. I put this whole commentary in only to show the way I have conducted my searches, and how intensively I searched. And I consider these searches a 'quick' search, at best, compared to some of the searches I did for the production of this text. I even searched for information on 'Glendenmore', thinking it might give a reference to the battle of Dupplin Moor under that name. Google does not show any online reference under that name, but did suggest 'Glendenmoor'. But the 90 plus references to 'Glendenmoor' all refer to some fictional city in some role playing game, so obviously, this was not what was meant.
    The page numbers in parenthesis in the account above possibly refer to one or the other of two books by Kelly Devries, a noted Military Historian, that Person Three cites in this submission, but I'm not sure. But none of the above accounts submitted deal specifically with chain mail armor, nor even show any armor being worn, nor do any of the accounts I could find mention armor, so again, this is inapplicable to chain mail stopping arrows.

    Another selection from Person Three, submission one;
    25. 'Crecy: {Referring to the killing of the Genoese--HTK} Most importantly, claims Giles li Nuisit, the Genoese could not withstand the English archery onslaught as they had no armor and carried no shields. (p. 169) {This implies that of the Genoese had had their armor they wouldn't have suffered the same level of casualties.-HTK} Further: Most commentators report that the arrows of the English longbows caused the death of many men and horses. However Geoffrey le Baker, the Grandes chroniques, and the Chronigraphica regum Francorum, report only the wounding and slaying of horses during this part of the attack. (p. 170)
    Devries, Kelly, Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century, The Boydell Press, 1996.'
    25. Refutation - I have no idea what the (HTK) refers to, but again, the page numbers evidently refer to Kelly Devries text, but I have no idea if this is a quote from Devries, or Person Three's story about what Devries has to say. I noted the misspelling of Lanercost above. I also noted difficulties I had in locating referenced texts. This was just more of the same. Google had no listings for Giles li Nuisit, nor did they even offer a possible alternative spelling. I tried several alternate spelling myself, and got no returns. "Chronigraphica regum Francorum" was the same. No returns, under that name or several alternate spellings I tried. Geoffrey le Baker returned 29,800 entries, but the first entry listed showed this: "Excerpts from Geoffrey le Baker's Chronicle, from Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. Edward Maunde Thompson (Oxford, 1889), pp. 75, 101. ... " The site it refered to only had two one paragraph excerpts though. Without going into detail on all the searches I performed, suffice it to say that I did not find an online copy of this book, nor a copy for sale, so this wound up a dead end. I did find, under the "Grandes chroniques", a site that has most or all of the pictures from the text, but none of the written text, and again, I did not find an online source for the book, and the few copies I found for sale were extremely high in price, as they are collecter's editions. However, the submission itself does not refer to armor being worn, but armor not being worn, so this is another account that is inapplicable for showing chain mail stopping arrows.

    This ends the section dealing with references I received supposedly recounting chain mail armor stopping arrows. As will be noticed, only two of those referenced texts actually checked out as actually containing the accounts claimed to refer to chain mail and arrows, but the references led me to two other accounts in the same texts that were as good as or better than the accounts sent. Accounts which the opposing side 'missed'. While it is not my job, as part of this study, to do the research the opposing side did not do, to locate texts they have not read, and to present a case they did not present, just so I can offer a refutation to those accounts, I did a lot of this anyway. If those who want to show chain mail stopping arrows want to use John Barbour, Giles li Nuisit, and Geoffrey le Baker, or the Lanercost Chronicles, Chronigraphica regum Francorum, the Grandes chroniques, or even the Chronicles of the Grand Catalan Company, if this actually exists, or any other period text, they need to provide accurate quotes from a readily accessible translation of the text and specify how to find that text. These quotes, if provided, should also be germaine to the topic, which is the effect of real weapons on real armor equivalent to our presumed armor standard. The proponents of this proposal are the ones claiming "extensive research" showing them to be correct. I've seen, and here presented,'extensive' information provided by them. I've not seen evidence of much research, though. Only two accounts, both somewhat questionable, even come close tp supporting their view, and those came in before the proposal was sent to the SEM, and were provided by someone who, as far as I know, does not actively support the proposal.
    But one thing needs to be noted about the proposal sent to the Society Earl Marshal to change the Missile Combat Rules to restrict Combat Archery. That one thing is the origin of the proposal, and who was responsible for it. Remember, the proposal claims: 'Extensive research has shown that the armor of any period was generally proof against arrows of the same period and could not penetrate the armor worn by knights, and arrows were effective mainly against their horses or against unarmored auxiliary levies. Each other weapon we use is effective against armored areas because it is historically shown that they either penetrated the armor causing grievous wounds or crushed the armor and the body beneath to cause grievous wounds.  This is not the case for medieval arrows, which were mostly effective only against unarmored areas, represented in our armor standard as the open face.'
    As I received it, except for the withheld name, 'Yes, (name withheld) was the one who did the actual physical writing of the proposal...as such I credited him for the writing of it. I commissioned it, and collaborated on it and it was submitted to the Standardization Committee by me ( I am one of my Kingdoms representatives on the committee) and then forwarded on to the SEM by me. hence it ends up being my responsibility' The person who wrote the above is the person I have called Person Two in this section. This is the same person who deliberately falsified at least three of the quotes he submitted as evidence of this 'extensive research', and in his refutation of Giraldus, questioned Giraldus's 'reliability'. Any 'research' received by anyone in support of this proposal, from him especially, needs to check it very carefully for such falsifications. I did not throw a cloud of suspicion on the persons who support this proposal. Person Two, by his falsifications, did that. Had he not falsified the quotes, and had he not also been the person responsible for the proposal, the cloud would not be nearly so thick and dark. And, if what we have seen here is the sum total of the 'extensive research' claimed, it seems that it has failed to support the claims made, even before the cloud of suspicion is thrown on it. It has not been my intention to discredit the persons involved so I could discredit the opposing side's arguments based on their being discredited. The arguments and citations do that discrediting on their own. That at least one of the persons involved stands discredited as 'less than reliable' does not discredit anyone but him. Nor does his being discredited mean that new 'research' presented is discredited. It does not even mean that what he has already given is automatically discredited. Each piece of research should be allowed to stand or fall on it's own merits. Each piece of research, even what I presented here, should be checked for validity, before it is accepted or rejected.