Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

If cavalry is going to collapse into roughly formed infantry in gallop, effects will be pretty disastrous even if infantry can't really hard them - horse colliding with something high speed means scary amount of energy in said collision. Infantrymen will be traumatized, but so would be horses and riders.

There's however nothing indicating that 'full retard' collision would be necessary, lance hit can take some of the velocity, horse will slow down naturally, poor victim will fall down, and so on.

There will be also always full range of behaviors between "standing fast" and full rout.

In fact I would guess they would be most common. Infantry can stand and defend, but naturally clustered and frightened, backing off, losing cohesion etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eorran

Go a question from comments a page or so back. Comments were made to the effect that one of the most important roles of heavy cavalry was to break enemy formations whose morale was low or wavering.

If a commander misjudges the enemy's morale and the infantry holds, this can be disastrous for a cavalry charge, correct?

Was it possible to stop a cavalry attack mid-charge if it became apparent the enemy wasn't going to break?

---

Whether or not it's disastrous for the cavalry depends on how much the infantry can harm them.

This in turn depends on what the infantry has to hurt the cavalry with, especially high velocity missiles like longbows, crossbows, cannon and firearms... and how protected the cavalry and their horses are.

Armored heavy cavalry (especially if on armored horses) may not be badly hurt by being repulsed by infantry, in fact it's fairly routine to wheel away, get more lances and come around for another charge. Unless the infantry has some way to really disrupt the cavalry force they may not suffer many casualties even if they can't break the formation. This is one of the best things about fighting on horseback, if it's not going well where you are you can go away quickly and come back again later. In this way pike squares and heavy cavalry quite often end up in a stalemate.

On the other hand if there are say, prepared pitfals and spikes which can hurt the horses, or if there is mud or some other difficult terrain nearby, or if a well-timed, effectively aimed volley of arquebus, crossbows or cannon fire in support of the infantry kills and wounds a bunch of the cavalry causing chaos and disrupting the formation, and then the infantry can run up with bill-hooks, halberds, morgensterns, flails and so on before they can get away...then it's a disaster. The latter is what the Swiss and the Czechs excelled at.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

If cavalry is going to collapse into roughly formed infantry in gallop, effects will be pretty disastrous even if infantry can't really hard them - horse colliding with something high speedy means scary amount of energy. Infantrymen will be traumatized, but so would be horses and riders.

There's however nothing indicating that 'full retard' collision lance hit can take some of the velocity, horse will slow down naturally, poor victim will fall down, and so on.

There will be also always full range of behaviors between "standing fast" and full rout.

In fact I would guess they would be most common. Infantry can stand and defend, but naturally clustered and frightened, backing off, losing cohesion etc.

---

I agree with the 'full retard' collision being somewhat rare, I think it was normal for lancers to make kind of a wheeling pass more often, they stab with their lances as they veer away just at the limit of their range (or maybe the back ranks of the cavalry 'battle' do this when they see that the front ranks couldn't break the infantry.

This is one of the reasons why lances were made soooo long, I think some of the Polish Hussar lances got as long as 7 meters, with specially hollowed out interiors to lighten them and so on. This way they could outreach the pikes, so no reason to go any closer than that.

G

i think it's also improtant to remember that a cavalry charge was not, for most of its approach, moving at top speed, but in a steady, controlled manner. the charge in Braveheart, where the english knights set off at a walk and move to a trot and canter as they get closer, was the norm. later drill manuals only told the riders to gallop at around 50-100 yards form teh target, to prevent the horses being "blown" and to keep formation

Even if the Scots in Braveheart did not have had spears, what would the English have expected to happen to the horses? They would still get their legs trapped and sharpt metal pressing into their undersides, with the horses behind them crashing into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yora

Even if the Scots in Braveheart did not have had spears, what would the English have expected to happen to the horses? They would still get their legs trapped and sharpt metal pressing into their undersides, with the horses behind them crashing into them.

---

they probably expected the scots to panic and start running away only to be speared down from behind, which had happened in most of the open battles at that point. Highlanders were known for their ferocity, not their discipline. The tendency of the scottish militia to panic and run at the sight of charging knights was typical of militias all over Europe, and the world for that matter.

The basic equation that ran through most militiamen's minds would be

(I have pointy stick and no training)+(Thats a big horse)*(That guy on top could probably eat me for breakfast)*(and he's wearing armor)*(oh god there are a lot of them)= Advance in reaward direction+ At the double

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yora

Even if the Scots in Braveheart did not have had spears, what would the English have expected to happen to the horses? They would still get their legs trapped and sharpt metal pressing into their undersides, with the horses behind them crashing into them.

---

They wouldn't necessarily got their legs trapped, at all, when horse wants to move, human, even with a lot of mechanical advantage, is ill suited to stop it.

He would usually be forced to move as well.

Assuming looser, less 'anti-cavalry' infantry, colliding with them would be desired to trample them good.

And on the top of the horse is man hacking and stabbing you.

Also the horse in many cases would have armor on their head and thier chest, where they are most likely to get hit in a charge..

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storm Bringer

i think it's also improtant to remember that a cavalry charge was not, for most of its approach, moving at top speed, but in a steady, controlled manner. the charge in Braveheart, where the english knights set off at a walk and move to a trot and canter as they get closer, was the norm. later drill manuals only told the riders to gallop at around 50-100 yards form teh target, to prevent the horses being "blown" and to keep formation

---

Right, this is very important to my mind. The honest truth of it is that we do not know really exactly how cavalry and infantry interacted on the field, but we do at least have one written account from the Templars that describes the process of the charge: La Régle du Temple as a Military Manual or How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge

If an arrow was fired from a longbow by a person who is 18-20 meters away and it strikes the left cheek of a persons face, how much physical damage would likely result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo v3

If an arrow was fired from a longbow by a person who is 18-20 meters away and it strikes the left cheek of a persons face, how much physical damage would likely result?

---

Well, that's really not answerable without more data, from bow performance (arrow weight and velocity) and arrowhead, and what part of the cheek....

But generally, damage would be very nasty without a doubt, and fatal after long, painful period, unless spinal column was hit at the exit.

Henry V of England was struck to the face by arrow at battle of Shrewsbury, resulting in terrible wound.

http://medievalreader.wordpress.com/...v-almost-died/

I somehow doubt that left or right cheek would made difference, save very asymmetric face. :smallwink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

Well, that's really not answerable without more data, from bow performance (arrow weight and velocity) and arrowhead, and what part of the cheek....

---

I'd say the arrow would weigh about 400 grain, with a steel broadhead arrowhead. It would strike at a height of half-way up the noise of the person, positioned under the center of his left eye.

Though I'm not sure about the velocity.

And velocity is all that matters... :smallamused:

But at 20 meters and if we are speaking of English Longbows fired by a trained English or Welsh Longbow archer, the arrow would most certainly penetrate quite deeply unless it's at an angle where it just scratches the skin and keeps on flying by.

As Spryte said, this probably wouldn't hit the brain but rather the mouth and nose area, which would make it very painful and uncomfortable to breath and swollow but still likely be lethal. Might take quite a while, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yora

And velocity is all that matters... :smallamused:

---

Problem is that I have no idea how to calculate it...

400 grains is pretty light arrow for medieval standards, hard to say if actual broadhead would be feasible to fit in that weight range.

Still, at that spot, it would most probably knock the teeth out, and the carve in to the upper jaw, how deep is damn hard to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo v3

If an arrow was fired from a longbow by a person who is 18-20 meters away and it strikes the left cheek of a persons face, how much physical damage would likely result?

---

The most important variable would be the direction of the arrow, i.e. what's 'behind' the cheek.
Assuming a longbow in the 160+ lbs range at short distance with combat arrows against an unarmored target, you can pretty much expect the tip to come out the other side, even with bones in the way.
I'm not a medic, but my guess is that you'd have good chances of surviving with modern medicine (or magical healing, probably) and quick treatment (unless the arrow hits something important, like brain or spinal column). With medieval medicine, all bets are off. You might get a serious infection at a place where nothing can be amputated, which is bad news without antibiotics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yora

And velocity is all that matters... :smallamused:

---

The angle is just as important. If it is tangential to the edge of the face, you won't have nearly as big a problem as if it strikes in the same place, but perpendicular to the original angle on the plane defined by the arrow and the edge of the face.

I once read that people could swim in plate armour. Anyone know if there's truth in this? If it isn't true, what about other armours (mail, kevlar vests, etc.)? I know cloth armour would be horrible to swim in, since I'm told it works like a sponge.

It's probably possible, with the lighter harness (plate armor ranged in weight from around 35 lbs to as much as 100 lbs or more) and there were some anecdotes about people swimming in plate armor or mail, but historically it was much more likely for people to quickly drown if they were in deep water wearing any kind of armor. This actually happened quite often whenever defeated armies were chased to a river for example, or sometimes even when armies were just trying to ford a river.

On the other hand I have read that cuir boulli is waterproof and actually floats. Maybe someone else can confirm that.

G

You'd need to be a very strong swimmer. Even just normal clothing is tough to swim in once it soaks up water.

We had to jump in the pool in full uniform in boot camp and tread water for a period of time. Just that was bad. Boots drown a lot of people because they fill up, and restrict your kicking. I can't imagine with 50 pounds of steel on me.

heavy stuff on your arms and legs tires you out faster, and you need to move your limbs a lot to stay afloat or swim, and moving through water is more effort than through air, so I would be stunned to see a soldier swim any distance in full plate.

That said, it's probably not impossible, especially in just a breastplate or half armor.

Yes, indeed, possible for very short periods of time and you do not want to be wearing an enclosed helmet! I have seen a video experiment of this, now that I think about it. The results were obviously somewhat speculative, but here is the video and a thread discussing it.

Would it be possible that the original thing Conners read about was (chain) mail?

Before I started reading this thread, seeing "people can swim in mail" could have made me mistake it for plate mail, and swimming in a chain mail shirt that doesn't cover (and weigh) the arms or legs is much easier than swimming in plate.

Chainmail is the only kind of mail. In fact the term chainmail is actually redundant because both words refer to the same construction method of linking rings together. All other kinds of armor are just armor and every time they are called mail it's just plain wrong.

I think we're overdue for a new thread, so here it is: link.