Ask me about archery, longbows especially.

[Demesnedenoir]

Shoulders can be wicked deadly, or leave you f'd up for life. Thank the gods for magic, heh heh.

I had fun in a rapier fight in The Contessa when one guy dropped after the fight. It was semi-inspired by a period account of a duel where the victor died not long after "winning."

 

[Prince of Spires]

Typing this because I'm beta-reading a fantasy MS that has a scene with an arrow hitting an unarmored MC in the chest and only penetrating a couple of inches. "You're lucky. It's not deep enough to hit anything vital." That ain't how it happens, people. Can confirm.

Maybe it was a very bad, very weak archer shooting from far away with a kiddy practice bow...

this one on an aluminum shaft, which is lighter than the ash shafts I've been shooting.

On a more serious note, how much does the weight of the arrow matter? Just curious because you specifically mentioned it.

Also, let us know how the deer tastes

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Basic physics, as one might suspect. There was once a cool spreadsheet for TTRPG (GURPS maybe?) that was based on physics to calculate ranges from draw weights, weight of arrow (head & shaft) & length of the bow, etc. I used it once to calculate what kind of bow an 8-10 foot tall beastie could draw and the range of their arrows. Not good for humans trying to charge was the answer, heh heh. One simple example would be "flight" arrows used to try and set world records are so light that sending them into an armored army would be silly. Everything else being equal, a heavier arrow carries more force. Heads are an interesting variable I haven't seen a detailed analysis of; comparing various primitive heads to modern razor tips in ballistic gel or something would be cool. I might have to look that up.

Back when I did more archery I had carbon fiber shafts, but now, when I ever get to shoot, I use a traditional bow and arrows. The difference has so many variables I'll let Malik weigh in on that in respect to hunting, except the basic: heavy arrow = greater penetration. A lighter arrow starts faster and slows down faster.

One of the things I always thought was fun was how crossbows needed so much more power to replicate the effectiveness of bows because of their short arms and the inefficiency of power transfer.

Edit: And crossbow bolts being light, they will carry less energy and damage potential.

On a more serious note, how much does the weight of the arrow matter? Just curious because you specifically mentioned it.

Also, let us know how the deer tastes

 

[Malik]

heavy arrow = greater penetration. A lighter arrow starts faster and slows down faster.

This. I've gone to slightly lighter arrows because they seem to group tighter at short distances. My range for hunting is always under 15 yards to ensure a humane shot. I opted for slightly less penetration in order to dial in a quick, humane takedown. I've had ash shafts penetrate fully and lodge in tree trunks, so I know I have the power in my setup to spare. (It's a recurve bow, there's a pic upthread.)

Also, one other thing is that, as Demesnedenoir noted, lighter shafts are faster. Not by much, just a few fps, but a deer's reflexes are exceptional. At 10 yards, they can duck under the arrow, or even jump over it. I want every advantage, as this isn't hunting so much as pest control. I live in (arguably haunted) old house on a weird dead-end road in the woods, overlooking a valley of 19th- and early 20th-Century farms and farmhouses, but the other side of the hill is gazillion-dollar ocean-view McMansions. One of my neighbors has a helicopter pad. I don't want a gut-hit deer wandering off and bleeding out in someone's swimming pool. That side of the tracks already has their issues with this side--a lot of developers are interested in this valley, and some of these families have been here for almost 150 years. But I digress. Anyway, the other guys don't need any more ammo. So, light arrow, tight shot group, close shots.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I can imagine sneaking onto a helipad to drag a deer away. Which is better than the pool...

 

[pmmg]

You know the deer is like....Crap...they have aluminum arrows. Those suckers are fast. If I can just make it to the pool.... Dah...why did I bring my heavier antlers? And where is that heli?


As an aside, every time I go to the chiropractor, I look at those medical posters he has on the wall, and think, where could someone get hit and not have the damage be too great. Those classic shoulder hits really would not go, cause behind the shoulder is a big ass bone that would get smacked even if the shoulder joint itself was missed. I suppose it really comes down to how real do you want it to be? Cause some stories require damage, but not the type that ends the story while everyone recovers. I don't think bodies were really meant to be taking arrows

Fortunately, stories exist in this realm of somethings I will accept and something not, even if technically, they would not be true.

 

[Aldarion]

As an aside, every time I go to the chiropractor, I look at those medical posters he has on the wall, and think, where could someone get hit and not have the damage be too great. Those classic shoulder hits really would not go, cause behind the shoulder is a big ass bone that would get smacked even if the shoulder joint itself was missed. I suppose it really comes down to how real do you want it to be? Cause some stories require damage, but not the type that ends the story while everyone recovers. I don't think bodies were really meant to be taking arrows

Shoulder hit that misses the bone and is on the outside of the shoulder is actually relatively safe, because it is just muscle there... no arteries or major veins or anything. Artery is on the inside, around the armpit.

How realistic such a hit is, however, is another thing.

Second option are hits to the outside of the thigh - again, large muscle without major blood vessels; artery of the thigh is on the inside, close to the bone.

Third option is the ever-classic shot into gluteus maximus. So long as it is from the side and misses the bone, it is good.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Thanks for the answers. I understood the physics part, where light is faster, but heavy gives more penetration, and that if you go to the extremes (as with trying to set world records for distance), you get very different results. However, I didn't know that these minor changes could have such an impact. Then again, also didn't know about the reaction speeds of deer. Maybe I should go hunting at some point. Live and learn. It's a nice detail to have a protagonist come up against at some point...

Heads are an interesting variable I haven't seen a detailed analysis of; comparing various primitive heads to modern razor tips in ballistic gel or something would be cool. I might have to look that up.

I seem to remember the Mythbusters doing an episode on this. I think they tested primitive arrow heads vs no arrow heads and found that there was surprisingly little difference between them against just deer hide and ballistic gel. However, that was a long time ago, so I might have the details wrong.

where could someone get hit and not have the damage be too great.

Just don't have them take an arrow to the knee. That's sure to end their adventuring career...

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Yeah, I figured you had the idea, but figured I'd throw it out there as part of the babble, heh heh.

Primitive needs defined, and so would many other things in the testing. Whenever any of those shows tested arms and armor, they tended to bug me. One had the nerve to test butted maille instead of riveted maille and declared that it sucked. I never watched an episode again, it ruined all credibility. If primitive means stone points and claiming they suck, I'll go back to my age-old theory before people tested maille and famously claimed it sucked (despite people starting to make maille armor for people diving with sharks with awesome results against high PSI attacks) and that is this: people didn't sit around knapping points because they sucked any more than people wore maille for centuries because it sucked, heh heh.

This trends right along with some (best to my knowledge unpublished) tests with cour bouilli that was done at a Brit museum or by museum staff... it's been ages, but, they worked on several theories on how the armor was made and found at least one that would take a shit ton of a beating. It was similar to linothorax testing against arrows, which was impressive as hell. When people made things that didn't work, they stopped making them, at least when it came to armor and weapons.

 

[Malik]

people didn't sit around knapping points because they sucked any more than people wore maille for centuries because it sucked, heh heh.

This.

Also, many--MANY--"historical testing videos" test steel edges against steel armor. That was not a thing. See my blog post on steel, or my piece on greatswords here on MS.

The short of it is, steel skips off steel, but steel bites iron the way diamonds bite glass. "Historical testing videos" seem to miss this point. Making mail from steel was almost impossible; drawing steel wire by hand is ridiculously slow and difficult. Then, there's flattening the ends and drilling them--you need something harder for each. As for steel plates, it's impossible to make large sheets of homogeneous steel without a blast furnace, which was invented in the 1800s. Before that, it all had to be welded together by hand. Having a suit of steel armor--even steel mail--was a flex on par with owning a private jet. Suits of steel armor exist from the Middle Ages, because they are ridiculously valuable and the families had people to oil and dust them weekly for centuries.

The heroes in my books take armor and weapons made from modern high-speed steel into a world with Viking-era weapons tech, and quickly learn it's like wearing Iron Man's suit into a bar fight.

The TLDR here is that a steel arrowhead will punch through iron mail or iron plate. It'll slow down, and won't achieve much penetration, but it won't skip off armor the way so many YouTubers would have you think.

 

[Aldarion]

The TLDR here is that a steel arrowhead will punch through iron mail or iron plate. It'll slow down, and won't achieve much penetration, but it won't skip off armor the way so many YouTubers would have you think.

IIRC, in The Knight and the Blast Furnace Alan Williams found that 5 out of 6 mail samples were in fact steel rather than iron. From 14th century onwards nearly all Italian plate armor was made from steel, and vast majority of plate armor from outside of Italy was also made from steel. I don't have the book with me now though, so take it with a pinch of salt.

It is the arrowheads that were made predominantly from iron. Steel was kinda expensive, and arrowheads had to be produced en masse.

That being said, all of these examples were late Medieval. So it is possible, likely even, that early plate armor (late 13th / early 14th century) was indeed iron. And of course, knightly armor was one thing. Half-plate for infantryman would obviously be of much lower quality.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

One interesting one that I watched long ago was going back to the bronze age, bronze heads against armor spoken of in Homer. Their recreation was surprisingly effective, creating a pin cushion of a warrior who would still be alive.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This could probably come down to a definition of steel. Low-carbon steel, or pretty much iron that got some carbon in it in the process of being made, was around sort of by default, if my memory serves. For most of medieval times, good steel was maybe used in small tools when it was made at all, not things you fling through the air and lose in battle. I think that sort of steel was a byproduct of the smelting process where they could only reach the necessary temperature in the middle of the forge and left them a small sample. But my brain has slipped over time, it's been years, and my brain sucks, heh heh.

I also recall a breastplate that had been doubled in the era of early firearms that was fully capable of defeating lead balls, but the cost of production was prohibitive. My brain has slipped too many gears, it's sad.

IIRC, in The Knight and the Blast Furnace Alan Williams found that 5 out of 6 mail samples were in fact steel rather than iron. From 14th century onwards nearly all Italian plate armor was made from steel, and vast majority of plate armor from outside of Italy was also made from steel. I don't have the book with me now though, so take it with a pinch of salt.

It is the arrowheads that were made predominantly from iron. Steel was kinda expensive, and arrowheads had to be produced en masse.

That being said, all of these examples were late Medieval. So it is possible, likely even, that early plate armor (late 13th / early 14th century) was indeed iron. And of course, knightly armor was one thing. Half-plate for infantryman would obviously be of much lower quality.

 

[pmmg]

I'm sure it was all bad stuff when it was coming at you.

 

[skip.knox]

>Riding in mail sucks.
Ride in linen.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Okay, I'm flying off-topic here, but it's interesting... you can pretty much judge the development of steel by how many plates were needed to make great helms, plus their shape and design. One late 13th century helm is considered medium carbon steel .5% and is made of 5 plates that are rather hard but also include slag in the manufacture. By the late 14th century, you start seeing one-piece helms. Sadly, despite mentioning earlier helms and their development, I'm not seeing the metallurgy on 11th-12th century helmets.

In another article, by the late 1500's you find plate armor without slag in a medium carbon steel.

I might end up spending too much time on this site, LMAO.

FROM: Gladius XXIV, 2004, pp. 123-134

"European knights of the 11th century wore a conical helmet with a nasal for head protec-tion; after about 1150 a round-topped version became increasingly popular, and after about 1180, a flat-topped version. From this date, all these types were sometimes fitted with a face-guard, to which was added a neck-guard, so that the conical helmet (which still remained in use) had evolved by around 1220 into a cylindrical headpiece, completely enclosing the head, called the «helm» (great helm, or «topfhelm» in German) which became the character-istic head protection for knights for a century or more. The helm was worn over a mail coif and arming-cap, and probably had internal padding. After 1250 the upper part often tapered slightly, and this became more pronounced after 1275. After around 1300 helms are shown with pivoted visors. They resemble the bascinet which appeared after 1300, and which was a helmet with the skull made in one piece, which might extend down to the shoulders, or only to just above the ears, and was sometimes fitted with a visor. The great helm was more enveloping than the simple conical helmets, but equally primitive in its metallurgy compared with the one-piece bascinets which appeared in the 14th century, and usually weighing around 2 kg. The more sophisticated metallurgy of the 14th century pro-vided larger pieces of steel, and skilled metalworkers were able to take full advantage of that, so that the production of one-piece helmets becomes practicable because they are made of better metal. The riveted joints between the plates are a source of weakness, since it is only the rivets that hold the plates together under impact. They also make the formation of a curved shape (attractive ballistically) more difficult, since the edges of the plates have to fit together. "

 

[pmmg]

>Riding in mail sucks.
Ride in linen.

Riding where the arrows are falling sucks too. Just stay home instead You can wear your comfy pants and play Video games.

 

[Aldarion]

Okay, I'm flying off-topic here, but it's interesting... you can pretty much judge the development of steel by how many plates were needed to make great helms, plus their shape and design. One late 13th century helm is considered medium carbon steel .5% and is made of 5 plates that are rather hard but also include slag in the manufacture. By the late 14th century, you start seeing one-piece helms. Sadly, despite mentioning earlier helms and their development, I'm not seeing the metallurgy on 11th-12th century helmets.

In another article, by the late 1500's you find plate armor without slag in a medium carbon steel.

I might end up spending too much time on this site, LMAO.

FROM: Gladius XXIV, 2004, pp. 123-134

"European knights of the 11th century wore a conical helmet with a nasal for head protec-tion; after about 1150 a round-topped version became increasingly popular, and after about 1180, a flat-topped version. From this date, all these types were sometimes fitted with a face-guard, to which was added a neck-guard, so that the conical helmet (which still remained in use) had evolved by around 1220 into a cylindrical headpiece, completely enclosing the head, called the «helm» (great helm, or «topfhelm» in German) which became the character-istic head protection for knights for a century or more. The helm was worn over a mail coif and arming-cap, and probably had internal padding. After 1250 the upper part often tapered slightly, and this became more pronounced after 1275. After around 1300 helms are shown with pivoted visors. They resemble the bascinet which appeared after 1300, and which was a helmet with the skull made in one piece, which might extend down to the shoulders, or only to just above the ears, and was sometimes fitted with a visor. The great helm was more enveloping than the simple conical helmets, but equally primitive in its metallurgy compared with the one-piece bascinets which appeared in the 14th century, and usually weighing around 2 kg. The more sophisticated metallurgy of the 14th century pro-vided larger pieces of steel, and skilled metalworkers were able to take full advantage of that, so that the production of one-piece helmets becomes practicable because they are made of better metal. The riveted joints between the plates are a source of weakness, since it is only the rivets that hold the plates together under impact. They also make the formation of a curved shape (attractive ballistically) more difficult, since the edges of the plates have to fit together. "

But is that really a causal relationship? After all, early Roman helmets were mostly one piece, while late Roman helmets were made of four plates: just compare the Imperial Gallic helmet (early Empire) to late Roman ridge helmet.

Difference in Roman helmets of course is that, just as with so many other things, production had to be simplified to enable equipping the severely increased army.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Well, these people know way more than I do and seem to believe it so by the technology being used. But I wouldn't declare a single truth. A person would have to dig deep into forge tech in both periods. Roman iron did reach medium carbon steel, but there are varying techniques to get there, and I've spent too much time on refreshing my lost metallurgy knowledge, heh heh.

But is that really a causal relationship? After all, early Roman helmets were mostly one piece, while late Roman helmets were made of four plates: just compare the Imperial Gallic helmet (early Empire) to late Roman ridge helmet.

Difference in Roman helmets of course is that, just as with so many other things, production had to be simplified to enable equipping the severely increased army.

 

[joshua mcdermott]

nicely shot. (gong back a page or two I know). I am not an expert but I do shoot quite a bit. went to the range 3 times in the last week. much has already been said but that would certainly pull me out of the story to have an arrow somehow only penetrate a few inches - like this was a normal thing. I could think of some scenarios:
1. it had deflected off a thing and hit at some oblique angle and lower velocity.
2. it was shot from a kids bow. (more on this later)
3. the person was wearing some armor-

On #2 I recently finished a pretty good 3 book series that had so much of the fighting really well done. even, quite a bit of the bow work, as they were shooting both western and asian styles (as I do). but the the thing I tried to get over, but could not ever quite, is that one of the MC, now probably 18? was restored to him the horse bow (asian style) he shot when he was 10. and he then proceeded to use that bow to wreak holy vengeance. great story but the whole time I could not set aside that the bow was probably like.. 30 lbs MAX and a warbow - even asian style is gonna start at 70lb but often much higher. (I shoot 65.. i guess it would do the job but if it WAS my job, I'd be working up to 90+... and a hero of a fantasy novel that was an expert in archery? 120 easy. but somehow hes using his kids bow? ) There is no way that the bow you use at 10 is gonna work for you at 18.

anyway, just an instance where the details did bring me out of the story and i still feel the series was lessor for it.