Last time, we discussed historic examples of arrows vs. armor. It is important to remember that both armor and arrowheads underwent continual improvement and innovation over time in a kind of arms race. As one improved, the other had to change or be made obsolete. If archers had had a clear advantage, armor would have disappeared because no one could have justified the cost and bother of armor.

For example, specialized armor-piercing points that were hardened emerged so they could penetrate the armor developed during the Hundred Years’ War. By the fifteenth century, armor plate was heat treated for hardness and so could be made lighter and more effective against bows and crossbows. Armor defeated arrows at Poitiers in 1356, forcing the archers to shoot from behind the enemy. At Agincourt, French knights were well-protected from arrows, though arrows did penetrate the sides of helmets and the visors.^[1] The historical sources make it quite clear that armor was very effective, but that sometimes armor could be penetrated.

Still, the main purpose of arrows was not to penetrate plate armor. The vast majority of arrows were shot at horses to disrupt cavalry charges or at the common soldiers who were not wearing heavy plate armor. These soldiers made up the majority of late medieval armies. Since the faces of those wearing armor were seldom completely protected, most injuries to armored knights were often to the face. Because of this weakness, in both Europe and Japan, archers intentionally aimed at the face in seeking to counter the growing effectiveness of armor.^[2]

We should also remember that archers were not just archers. They were multipurpose fighters and had to be able to wield other weapons when the battle closed. This might include swords, hammers, lances, maces, axes, daggers, and the like.

So when it comes to armor and arrows, don’t fall into the trap of thinking in absolutes. In battle, as in life, things are rarely that simple or that black and white. This was an arms race, a competition to achieve greater effectiveness on the battlefield. Sometimes bows prevailed, sometimes they didn’t. In the end, armor won out simply because there is a limit to how heavy a bow a man can draw.

^[1]. Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow, 272, 274, 276.

^[2]. Strickland and Hardy, The Great Warbow, 278-279.