Author Topic: Medival iron point question (Re post)  (Read 13398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2015, 10:55:52 am »
One point I'd like to make is, a lot of the topics we discuss concerning medieval archery are based on little or no evidence.

That's fine , we all come up with our own theories and ideas in order to fill in the blanks.

Many of us conduct experimental archaeology without even realising it.

When, however, we have contemporary paintings that show a certain arrowhead, a type of nock or even apparent reflex in bows, we should not dismiss it easily as artistic licence.

Why ignore what is starring us in the face, unless there was proof otherwise.

Does that mean you think all medieval bows should have terrible tiller, you should shoot the arrows on the wrong side of the bow, the sapwood should be exactly the same thickness as the heartwood on a yew bow, the arrowheads should be the same size and length as the fletchings...?  I'm being facetious of course, but taking contemporary art as "evidence" is incredibly risky.  Most of them don't even get the basic colours correct on medieval clothing, and yet we're expected to believe the artists know the ins and outs of military arrowheads?  Part of me thinks it's far more likely they knew they had to draw an arrowhead, wandered down to the nearest blacksmith and picked up the first thing they could find, expecting all arrowheads to be the same.

If we took Picasso's art as "evidence" of human form during his period, we'd be in trouble.  ;)

Big swallow-tailed broadheads don't make sense in a military situation.  They're forge-welded together, which takes a huge amount of time, almost twice as much material and a far hotter forge.  You can bash out Type 10s in about 6 minutes with a charcoal fire pot.  Why go to all the trouble of making a broadhead when we know from archaeological finds that Type 10s were everywhere, in almost every battle field excavated from over a huge period of time?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 11:45:49 am by WillS »

Offline Pat B

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 37,633
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2015, 02:01:09 pm »
I'm no military expert by any stretch but it seems to me that the bodkin types of broadheads would be more practical in the "artillery" style of shooting that took place during the War Bow period. A wedge type head, sort of like the bodkins, could get through armor, maile and heavy leather used as protection during that time. Unless you shot through the eye slots of helmet most other types wouldn't work very well...unless just the fear factor of the crescent points was enough to frighten the enemy.
Make the most of all that comes and the least of all that goes!    Pat Brennan  Brevard, NC

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2015, 03:03:15 pm »
When I think about the horror of going into one of these battles with swords and axes and where any wound can mean a lingering death by infection I can't see how a cresent shaped arrowhead is going to make me "more" afraid. I would be pretty much maxed out at the first mention of a battle :o :o

Offline son of massey

  • Member
  • Posts: 136
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2015, 03:46:13 pm »
Stream of consciousness here to some degree, but the crescent shaped heads are nearly the inverse of a hunting broadhead shape, only taken to the extreme. So where hunting heads are designed for penetration and punching a clean hole, could these 'opposite' heads, when shot into soft tissue, be designed to act almost like a 'sharp blunt', that is to just make a mess of the meat? I also wonder if healing from or being treated for a wound made from one of these would be easier or harder than the standard broadhead or bodkin-could they act at all like a bayonet where the wound is particularly prone to infection or hard to take care of?

SOM

Offline meanewood

  • Member
  • Posts: 243
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2015, 05:26:15 pm »
The point I'm making is contemporary painting are not evidence but with the lack of any evidence to the contrary, we should not dismiss the possibility that they were in common use on the battlefield for specific use against horses for example!

The argument that they would not have had more than one type of head in use on a battlefield is underestimating the level of sophistication of these people.
As for fitting in arrow bags, easy, don't have a leather spacer.

I think Ascham refers to having an amount of 'Flights' within a sheaf of arrows. It would make sense to me if 'Flights' were fitted with swallow tails to fire at mounted troops at extreme range!

If we use the arrows found on the 'Mary Rose' as an example, we notice there seems to be a pattern of two different lengths of arrow, 28in and 30in.
I don't think this is random, so perhaps the two different groups had a different head, perhaps Tudor heads on one and type 16's on the other!

This is not evidence but it does show how they may be prepared to mix types of arrows during battle.

To deny the use of this type of head in battle, you need evidence to back it up, not supposed minor
inconveniences to the supply and use of this arrowhead.

Offline Urufu_Shinjiro

  • Member
  • Posts: 709
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2015, 06:34:23 pm »
In doing some research and viewing other conversations and experimental tests among historians there are two answers, the official answer being that "no one really knows", and the answer that rises to the top of the speculation and especially the results of experimentation is that these arrowheads were for small ground game, rabbits and such. The rope cutting thing, rubbish, in experiments they rarely even hit the rope edge on let alone cut it. The horse thing, again rubbish, most experiments done on that kind of hide either with fleshy or boney backing the two prongs stuck in and that's about it. With birds they didn't do much to cut feathers in flight or that sort of thing and did more damage to the bird on direct strikes than one would desire, blunts are a much better, and well documented mind, option for birds. Smallish ground game though seemed quite susceptible to this type of point as not too much damage done, the width made for larger chance of hitting, and the shape acted like a judo tip in that it would flip the arrow or prevent loss in brush. Again, no one really knows for sure, but that's where I'd lay my money...

Offline meanewood

  • Member
  • Posts: 243
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2015, 10:10:26 pm »
It seems we are getting confused about the type of head in question.

The initial post was concerned with the crescent shaped head but the thread has gone down the road of a discusion about swallow tailled heads!

No one has suggested the crescent shaped head was used to kill horses.

Sorry about getting sidetracked.

mikekeswick

  • Guest
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2015, 03:27:42 am »
If they were used primarily to kill horses then they would work on any large animal....what do people use to go hunting today? Physics hasn't changed much.....
The way to actually work this out is to make some and then use them on various targets. Whatever they work best on now is what they worked best on then. Pretty simple really!

Offline Pat B

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 37,633
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2015, 11:03:48 am »
A wide crescent would have poor penetration on a horse, I would think, especially if the horse was suited for battle. And I think it would not be practical for an archer to carry arrows with such a big head. They must have a specific application or they wouldn't have made them but what that would be baffles me.
Make the most of all that comes and the least of all that goes!    Pat Brennan  Brevard, NC

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2015, 11:36:38 am »
....hunting.

Offline Lucasade

  • Member
  • Posts: 335
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2015, 05:23:35 pm »
It may have poor penetration but I can imagine it would make the horse seriously unhappy and disinclined to do what the rider wants it to!

I have no opinion on their use or otherwise in battles...

Offline Pat B

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 37,633
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2015, 07:56:41 pm »
 I imagine a horse shot with any arrow would be seriously unhappy, etc.
Make the most of all that comes and the least of all that goes!    Pat Brennan  Brevard, NC

Offline dylanholderman

  • Member
  • Posts: 787
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2015, 09:03:46 pm »
might just piss it off too :P war horses weren't selected for the're pleasant personality.

mikekeswick

  • Guest
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2015, 03:12:04 am »
....hunting.

No way. They weren't stupid back then you know..... ;) ;)
Do people use heads like that to hunt today....NO! Ask yourself why not.... ;)

Offline WillS

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,905
Re: Medival iron point question (Re post)
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2015, 08:27:29 am »
Cos they were smarter than we are today ;)