Longbow's Armor-Piercing Ability: Myth Or Reality?

The longbow is a type of bow that was used as a weapon in medieval England, with notable victories at the battles of Falkirk, Crecy, and Agincourt. The question of whether a longbow could pierce plate armour is a complex one, with many variables at play. These include the quality and thickness of the armour, the type of arrowhead used, the angle and distance of the shot, and the strength and skill of the archer.

Experiments have been conducted to test the effectiveness of the longbow against plate armour, with varying results. Some tests suggest that arrows fired from longbows were unable to penetrate plate armour, while others indicate that they could penetrate armour up to a distance of 200 metres. The energy released at impact was found to be equivalent to being hit with a sledgehammer, which could disable or even kill the armoured knight.

It is worth noting that the English longbow was used en masse, with a high rate of fire, delivering up to 40,000 arrows per minute. This would have been a formidable force on the battlefield, even if the arrows did not always penetrate the armour. The arrows could wound or disable the knights, or bring down their horses, disrupting the enemy's formation and making them vulnerable to attack.

While the longbow may not have been able to consistently pierce plate armour, it was undoubtedly a feared and effective weapon in medieval warfare.

Arrows could pierce chainmail but not plate armour

The effectiveness of longbows against plate armour is a highly debated topic. Some sources claim that longbows could not penetrate plate armour, while others argue that they could under certain circumstances. The outcome of this debate has significant implications for understanding the tactics and strategies employed in medieval warfare.

It is important to recognise that the effectiveness of longbows depends on various factors, including the quality and thickness of the armour, the type of arrowhead used, the skill and strength of the archer, and the distance between the archer and the target. Experiments with replica longbows and armour suggest that arrows can penetrate chainmail but struggle to pierce plate armour, especially at longer ranges. However, the force of the arrow's impact could still cause significant damage, such as breaking the ribs or sternum of the person wearing the armour.

The English longbow played a crucial role in several medieval battles, including Falkirk (1298), Crecy (1346), and Agincourt (1415). While it is unlikely that longbows could consistently penetrate plate armour, they could target weak points in the armour, such as the neck or armpits, or aim for the horses, disrupting the French cavalry charges. The rate of fire of longbows was also impressive, with an army of 5000 archers capable of sustaining a firepower of 40,000 rounds per minute, creating a psychological advantage.

The development of plate armour was a response to the threat posed by weapons like the longbow. As armour technology advanced, the effectiveness of longbows diminished, and they became less prevalent on the battlefield. By the 1420s-1430s, longbows were largely obsolete against plate armour, and the tide of the Hundred Years' War started to turn against the English. However, it is important to note that not all soldiers could afford the best armour, and lower-quality armour was more vulnerable to arrow penetration.

In conclusion, while longbows may not have been able to consistently pierce plate armour, they still played a significant role in medieval warfare by disrupting enemy formations, causing injuries, and targeting weaker armour or unprotected horses. The debate about the effectiveness of longbows against plate armour highlights the complex interplay between weapon technology and armour development in shaping the tactics and outcomes of historical battles.

Arrows could wound or kill without piercing armour

While arrows were seldom able to pierce through medieval plate armour, they could still wound or kill without doing so. The arrows could still penetrate chainmail, and even if they didn't, they could still bend the individual plates of the armour, limiting the movement of the knight. They could also pierce the armour at weak points, such as the armpits, eyeslits, or the armour's joints. Arrows could also target the horses, which were often less armoured than the knights themselves.

Arrows could penetrate plate armour at close range

The effectiveness of the longbow against plate armour is a highly debated topic. Some sources claim that the arrows could not penetrate the armour, while others argue that they could, but only at close range.

The effectiveness of the longbow against plate armour depends on a variety of factors, including the quality and thickness of the armour, the type of arrowhead used, the skill of the archer, and the distance between the archer and the target.

Some experiments have shown that arrows can penetrate plate armour, but only at very close ranges, usually less than 50 yards. The type of arrowhead used also makes a difference, with bodkin-type arrowheads being more effective at penetrating armour than broadhead arrowheads.

In addition, the armour of the time was not uniform, and the quality varied greatly. High-quality steel plate armour was expensive and often only affordable to the nobility. Lower-quality armour, made from wrought iron or inferior steel, was more vulnerable to arrow penetration.

The English longbow was a powerful weapon, capable of delivering a large number of arrows in a short amount of time. At close range, the force of the arrows could be enough to knock an armoured knight off their horse or wound them severely, even if the arrows did not penetrate the armour.

Overall, while the longbow may have been able to penetrate plate armour at close range, it was not a guaranteed occurrence and depended on a variety of factors.

Arrows could pierce lower-quality plate armour

The effectiveness of the longbow in penetrating plate armour is a highly debated topic. The answer depends on many factors, including the quality of the armour and the range from which the arrow is shot.

It is generally agreed that arrows could not penetrate high-quality plate armour. However, as high-quality steel was expensive, many soldiers—especially foot soldiers—could not afford full steel plate armour. Instead, they wore armour that was made from a mix of materials, such as wrought iron and steel, or armour that combined plate with chainmail. This type of armour was less effective at stopping arrows.

The effectiveness of the longbow also depended on the type of arrowhead used. Bodkin arrowheads, for example, were designed to penetrate plate armour. The arrows used in the Battle of Falkirk (1298), Crecy (1346) and Agincourt (1415) may have bounced off plate armour, but they could still cause serious injuries. The force of the strike from a longbow arrow was so great that it could break the sternum or ribs of a victim, rendering them unable to fight. Arrows could also get stuck in the armour, making it difficult for the wearer to move.

The rate of fire of the longbow was also a significant factor in its effectiveness. An army of 5,000 archers could sustain a rate of fire of 40,000 rounds per minute, which would be enough to intimidate any enemy.

Arrows could penetrate plate armour at certain angles

The effectiveness of longbows against plate armour is a highly debated topic. While some sources claim that longbows could not penetrate plate armour, others argue that they could under certain conditions. The ability of an arrow to penetrate plate armour depends on various factors, including the quality and thickness of the armour, the type of arrowhead used, the draw weight and length of the bow, the range and angle of the shot, and the skill of the archer.

Some experiments have been conducted to test the ability of longbows to penetrate plate armour. One such experiment used a replica English longbow and a pig carcass dressed in a combination of plate armour and chainmail. The results showed that arrows had no difficulty penetrating the chainmail but bounced off the plate armour, leaving dents. This suggests that the force of the arrow impact, even if it does not penetrate the armour, could still be significant enough to disable or knock down a knight.

Other sources provide accounts of longbows penetrating plate armour in historical battles, such as the Battle of Crecy and the Battle of Agincourt. It is important to note that the effectiveness of longbows may have varied depending on the quality of the armour and the skill of the archers. Over time, armour technology improved, and the ability of longbows to penetrate plate armour may have diminished. Additionally, the use of longbows as anti-armour weapons may have declined as crossbows and firearms became more prevalent.

In conclusion, while longbows may not have been able to consistently penetrate plate armour, they could still inflict damage or disrupt enemy formations, especially when used en masse. The ability of arrows to penetrate plate armour depends on a combination of factors, and it is challenging to replicate the exact conditions of historical battles in modern experiments.

Frequently asked questions