If you search for the subject of arrows versus armor online or in books, you will find considerable controversy. Some tests seem to suggest that arrows were useless at penetrating mail and plate armor. Others suggest that arrows could penetrate, but did very little damage. Still others argue that arrows were simply lethal and armor provided little defense. The problem with all of these tests is that they often do not use accurate period technology, they fail to take into account changes in weapon and armor technologies, and they discount, do not believe, or even use, historical sources. Most tests also don’t use real warbows, don’t draw them the way they were drawn historically or as far as they were drawn, use the wrong points for the type of armor being tested, shoot at ranges much closer than would have been practical in combat, etc. Regardless of what modern tests may or may not demonstrate, we should pay attention to what people who used armor and fought against armor tell us about its value and effectiveness.

Mail, plate, and lamellar armor were very expensive and were only available to the wealthy few. For example, a mail hauberk of about 25,000 rings would cost the “annual income from quite a big village.”^[1] Most of the men on the battlefield could not afford to purchase or maintain such armor and had to make do with padded clothing and leather or metal helmets. By the fifteenth century, we see more common archers and soldiers wearing mail or pieces of plate, but they remained in the minority. Even those who wore plate armor seldom had their entire bodies covered until the fifteenth century, and arrows could and did penetrate thinner armor. Armor on the breastplate was thicker at the center and thinner at the sides. The sides of helmets were also thinner. Openings in armor at the armpits, the inside of the arm, the neck, behind the leg, and the face gave arrows ample opportunity to wound.

Studies of Japanese casualty reports reveal that the lamellar armor was very effective. Most wounds were reported for areas of the body that were less well-protected by the armor. Seventy percent of reported wounds were on the arms and legs. Wounds to the thighs and calves accounted for forty-one percent of battlefield casualties. Chest and head wounds occurred in the “face, lower neck, and underarms.”^[2] The same is true for European battlefields. Injuries to Viking-era skeletons were almost always to the head and lower legs which were not protected by the round shields and armor. The Tournai Chronicle claims that “the French defenders of this city in 1340 [were] wounded by English arrows in the arms, thighs, and knees.”^[3]

Let’s also remember that weapon makers were just as ingenious as armorers in figuring out how to exploit the weaknesses of the armor they faced. Spears, swords, daggers, and arrowpoints that were sharp and tapered gradually were very effective at getting between mail rings and forcing them apart, punching through plate, or being forced through narrow gaps in armor. In Europe, a wide variety of bodkin arrowpoints were developed to punch through mail and armor. Square and needle bodkins were designed to pry open mail rings. Short, fat, chisel-like points, sometimes with two to four sharpened edges were meant to penetrate plate armor. These chisel-like points were very effective because the head was wider than the shaft, which meant that, once the head had punched through, there was very little resistance to further penetration. By the fifteenth century, these points were being specially hardened to be as strong as the plate armor they were intended to penetrate or even harder.^[4] Archers also discovered a little trick to aid in performance by covering the points with wax, which assisted in penetration by lubricating the points.^[5]

[Next time we will look at historic examples of arrows vs. armor.]

^[1]. Ayton, “Arms, Armour, and Horses,” 188.

^[2]. Friday, Samurai, Warfare and the State, 96.

^[3]. Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow, 273.

^[4]. Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow, 277.

^[5]. Soar, The Crooked Stick, 88.