Contents
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Summary
Bibliography
Credits
Appendix

Return to Aethelmearc Archery

    The texts referred to here will be found fully identified and cited in the bibliography section of this study, instead of in the body of the text. That bibliographic entry will also include information on where the specific text used can be found, either in print, or online, where possible.

    1. "The Siege of Amida" by Ammianus Marcellinus. This is the story of Romans in the city of Amida (359 AD) being attached by Persians. The quote used is from BOOK XIX, Chapter 1 entitled 'Sapor, while urging the people of Amida to surrender, is attacked by the garrison with arrows and spears. While King Grumbates attempts the same thing, his son is slain.'
    'The king, rejoicing in the wretched imprisonment of our men that had come to pass, and anticipating like successes, set forth from there, and slowly advancing, came to Amida on the third day. And when the first gleam of dawn appeared, everything so far as the eye could reach shone with glittering arms, and mail-clad cavalry filled hill and dale.'
    This chapter has the Persian cavalry in mail. In the next chapter, when the assault actually began, we find the following:
    'And hardly had Grumbates hurled a bloodstained spear, following the usage of his country and the custom of our fetial priest, than the army with clashing weapons flew to the walls, and at once the lamentable tempest of war grew fiercer, the cavalry advancing at full speed as they hurried to the fight with general eagerness, while our men resisted with courage and determination.
    Then heads were shattered, as masses of stone, hurled from the scorpions, crushed many of the enemy; others were pierced by arrows, some were struck down by spears and the ground strewn with their bodies, while others that were only wounded retreated in headlong flight to their companions. No less was the grief and no fewer the deaths in the city, since a thick cloud of arrows in compact mass darkened the air, while the artillery which the Persians had acquired from the plunder of Singara inflicted still more wounds.'
    This account has men in mail pierced by arrows. And elsewhere in the description of the siege, we find not only that the Persian cavalry was involved as shown, but also which gate each unit was assigned to attack. This is a very detailed account, as such accounts go. I'm not going to quote the whole document to show everything that happened. To see everything written, you will have to go read the whole document.

    2. "Gesta Danorum" by Saxo. Quoting from Book Eight, from the twelvth and thirteenth paragraphs, about a battle at Kalmar between the Danes and Swedes in about 940 AD.
    'The same man witnesses that the maiden Weghbiorg (Webiorg) fought against the enemy and felled Soth the champion. While she was threatening to slay more champions, she was pierced through by an arrow from the bowstring of Thorkill, a native of Tellemark. For the skilled archers of the Gotlanders strung their bows so hard that the shafts pierced through even the shields; nothing proved more murderous; for the arrow-points made their way through hauberk and helmet as if they were men's defenceless bodies.
    Then at last the Danes suffered a great defeat, owing to the Thronds and the dwellers in the province of Dala. For the battle began afresh by reason of the vast mass of the archers, and nothing damaged our men more.'

    This account does not give a description of the actual armor being worn, other than to call it 'hauberk and helmet'. However, the picture above (fig. one) of a pre-viking helmet from Vendel, Sweden, identified as probably 6th -7th century, clearly shows that chain mail was known and in use well before the time of the story above, in the general area of the world in which the story takes place. The helmet is in the Upplandsmusset, Upsala, Sweden, and the photo used was provided by the Werner Forman Archive, London.
    Since we know almost nothing about the author, I was not able to 'qualify' his credentials. Now Saxo may have been 'low-born'. We know he was Danish. If he was exaggerating to make his fellow 'low-born' Danes look better, then it must have been in actuality even worst for them at this battle than he describes, because this story is in no way complementary to the Danes, as they lost. Saxo is generally considered the only historian for the period covered by him in Danish history, so his account should be as reliable an account as we are likely to get of this occurrence.

3. "Heimskringla - The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway" by Snorri Sturlson  Quoting from Heimskringla, SAGA OF HARALD HARDRADE, Part 3, Chapter 65 entitled "BEGINNING OF THE BATTLE OF NIS-RIVER." This tells of a battle between Danes and Norse. The year is 1063 AD.
   'It was late in the day when the battle began, and it continued the whole night. King Harald shot for a long time with his bow. So says Thiodolf: --
                                        "The Upland king was all the night
                                        Speeding the arrows' deadly flight.
                                        All in the dark his bow-string's twang
                                        Was answered; for some white shield rang,
                                        Or yelling shriek gave certain note
                                        The shaft had pierced some ring-mail coat,
                                        The foemen's shields and bulwarks bore
                                        A Lapland arrow-scat(2) or more." '
    Here, the reporter describes the armor worn simply as 'ring-mail'. In other places in the text he mentions 'ring-linked coat' sewn on to an unspecified backing, and calls it ring-mail also. The 'ring-linked coat' seems pretty much a description of what we in the SCA would call chain mail. What we in the SCA would call 'ring-mail' is not 'linked' rings, but separate rings sewn on a backing, and the terminology probably owes more to Gary Gagyx and D & D (Dungeons and Dragons) than to any archeological artifacts of this type of armor. And again, the picture of the helmet (fig. one) from Vendel above shows chain mail in use in that general area well before the time of either of these stories from "Heimskringla". To show his description of ring-linked coat I'm quoting from Heimskringla, KING OLAF TRYGVASON'S SAGA, Part 2 Chapter 43 entitled. "BATTLE WITH THE JOMSBORG VIKINGS". The year is 988AD.
                                        'The ring-linked coat of strongest mail
                                        Could not withstand the iron hail,
                                        Though sewed with care and elbow bent,
                                        By Norn (4), on its strength intent.
                                        The fire of battle raged around, --
                                        Odin's steel shirt flew all unbound!
                                        The earl his ring-mail from him flung,
                                        Its steel rings on the wet deck rung;
                                        Part of it fell into the sea, --
                                        A part was kept, a proof to be
                                        How sharp and thick the arrow-flight
                                        Among the sea-steeds in this fight.'
    Again, Snorri may be 'low-born'. But in the first story, about Harald Hardrede, so if he is exaggerating, he is exaggerating to make a high-born person look good, not a 'low-born' person. Also, Snorri's accounts are generally accepted as the best accounts we have of the times he reports. This is another example of arrows penetrating chain mail.

4. "Bayeux Tapestry" - Battle of Hastings (1066 AD)

    Not a literary source, but an artifact from the period, showing a pictorial history of the Battle of Hastings. At the bottom can be seen a Saxon with an arrow in his face, and a second arrow in his thigh. He is the one with his head to the right. He is shown to be armored the same as all the other fighters around him, on both sides. It is generally acknowledged that chain mail was the armor being worn at Hastings in 1066 AD, so this is a picture of an arrow penetrating chain mail. It is not a photograph, as photography was not invented at that time. Instead, the people of the day did what they could to provide a visual record of what happened, and William's half-brother Bishop Odo is credited with commissioning and overseeing the embroidering of the Bayeux Tapestry. Does this embroidered picture prove that the Norman arrows penetrated the Saxon chain mail? NO! What it does prove is that very shortly after the battle, the people working on this tapestry, including Bishop Odo, who was actually present at the battle of Hastings, 'believed' that arrows could penetrate chain mail and had in fact penetrated chain mail during the battle. There must have been some reason for that belief. The complete picture of the Bayeux Tapestry can be found online at http://hastings1066.com/

5. "Historia Hierosolymita" by Albert of Aix, describing the battle at Nicaea (1096 AD) during the "People's Crusade" of Peter the Hermit,
    'But the Franks, unaware of Soliman's approach, advanced from the forest and the mountains with shouting and loud clamor. There they first beheld the battle lines of Soliman in the midst of the field, awaiting them for battle. When they had seen the Turks, they began to encourage one another in the name of the Lord....
    There Walter the Penniless fell, pierced by seven arrows which had penetrated his coat of mail. Reinald of Broyes and Folker of Chartres, men of the greatest renown in their own lands, fell in like martyrdom, destroyed by the enemy, though not without great slaughter of the Turks.'
    "The New Encyclopaedia Britannica" calls Albert of Aix "...the chief authority on the First Crusade...", and lists his work "The sole document on the People's Crusade of 1096..." I'll accept that as 'qualification' of his credentials. Albert names three specific individuals as dying. The last two may be discounted as having been killed in some way other than by arrows, but Walter the Penniless is specifically shown as dying by seven arrows that pierced his coat of mail. And earlier in his account, Albert did comment on the chain mail armor of the other two men, so we know they also had chain mail armor available to them. This is another example of arrows penetrating chain mail.

6. "The Itinerary of Archbishop Baldwin Through Wales" (1188 AD), by Giraldus Cambrensis. Quoting from the end of Chapter IV, "The journey by Coed Grono and Abergevenni"
    'It seems worthy of remark, that the people of what is called Venta are more accustomed to war, more famous for valour, and more expert in archery, than those of any other part of Wales.  The following examples prove the truth of this assertion.  In the last capture of the aforesaid castle, which happened in our days, two soldiers passing over a bridge to take refuge in a tower built on a mound of earth, the Welsh, taking them in the rear, penetrated with their arrows the oaken portal of the tower, which was four fingers thick; in memory of which circumstance, the arrows were preserved in the gate.  William de Braose also testifies that one of his soldiers, in a conflict with the Welsh, was wounded by an arrow, which passed through his thigh and the armour with which it was cased on both sides, and, through that part of the saddle which is called the alva, mortally wounded the horse.  Another soldier had his hip, equally sheathed in armour, penetrated by an arrow quite to the saddle, and on turning his horse round, received a similar wound on the opposite hip, which fixed him on both sides of his seat. What more could be expected from a balista?  Yet the bows used by this people are not made of horn, ivory, or yew, but of wild elm; unpolished, rude, and uncouth, but stout; not calculated to shoot an arrow to a great distance, but to inflict very severe wounds in close fight.'
    Giraldus here is quoting William de Broase, a person known to Giraldus (they were neighbors), and Giraldus gives verifiable evidence of the power of the bows when he mentions the arrows in the door. Giraldus was the son of a Norman Noble and descended from Rhys ap Tewdwr Mawr, the last independent Prince of South Wales, through his mother, Rhys granddaughter. No lowborn person here, but the great-grandson of a Prince and the son of a noble, writing to his superior in the Church. This is another example of arrows penetrating chain mail.
    There was a refutation of this text sent to me. I include it here, along with my defense of the text.
    6. Refutation - 'Ah, Geraldus Cambrensis - the "National Inquirer" of the Medieval period. Interestingly, Gerald is the only one who has such apocryphal stories about the longbow. It cannot be corroborated from any other source I know of.
    so..while I cannot dispute that this passage exists...scholars who's  opinion holds FAR more weight than mine feel its of a dubious  nature...'
    6. Defense of the text - The comment about 'the "National Inquirer" of the Medieval period' and the use of the word 'apocryphal' is designed to set the idea of unreliability in the reader's mind, and  is just an attack on Giraldus's work without facts to back it up. I also have found no other sources that tell of the use or power of the Welsh bow of the late 1100's, one way or the other. There is no reason to question Giraldus's facts based merely on lack of corroborating sources, unless we are going to question every incident in every period text that lacks corroborating additional sources. Giraldus does not call it a longbow, by the way. There is some indication from other things I read the Welsh may have used a relatively short, heavy bow, but such things as bow type are totally unimportant to this defense of the text from this refutation. Who are these scholars? He names none of these scholars who feel it is of a dubious nature. What are their credentials? What are their sources for their opinion?
    Giraldus was writing to his 'Superior' in the church, the Archbishop of Canterbury. While some passages in his writings get somewhat fantastical, with several things out of the ordinary being commented on as an act of God, this particular portion about the arrows in the door, and the naming of William de Broase as a witness to his men being shot has no such religious connotations. It is not very likely that a churchman, writing to his Superior, would deliberately write untruths, and then provide that Superior with information on how he can verify the truth or fallacy of the statements. It would be different if he were crediting to God some outstanding, and unexplainable event, but in this incident, while sort of praising his own countrymen, the Welsh, there is nothing to be gained by exaggeration, and potentially, a lot to be lost, like his own position in the clergy. It is not put in to glorify the Welsh, though he was Welsh (half, at least) himself, as the general tone of the work is not complimentary to the Welsh on the whole. Remember, he is telling the story of what the arrows were capable of doing to show proof of his assertion that the 'Venta' were 'more expert in archery' than other Welshmen. If the Archbishop didn't question his 'proof', I don't see why we, over 800 years later, should question it.

    7. "Annales seu cronicae incliti regni Poloniae" by Jan Dlugosz, Quoting from the account of the year 1241 AD, concerning the battle at Liegnitz, Poland.
    'The Prince arrays his army on level ground near the River Nysa in five ranks: the first consists of crusaders and volunteers speaking several languages, and some gold miners from Zlotoryja; the second line is made up of knights from Cracow and Wielkopolska; the third of knights from Opole; the fourth of the Grand Master of the Prussian Knights with his brethren and other chivalry; while the fifth consists of Silesian and Wroclavian barons, the pick of the knights from Wielkopolska and Silesia and a small contingent of mercenaries, all under the command of Prince Henry himself. There are many Tatar units, each more numerous and more experienced in battle; indeed, each consists of more men than the combined Polish force. Battle is joined. The Poles attack first and their initial charge breaks the first Tatar rank and moves forward, but, when the fighting becomes hand-to-hand, they are surrounded by Tatar archers, who prevent the others coming to their assistance. These then waver and finally fall beneath the hail of arrows, like delicate heads of corn broken by hail-stones, for many of them are wearing no armour, and the survivors retreat.'
    Jan Dlugosz was not present when this happened, but according to "The Catholic Encyclopedia", 'He was not content to repeat the statements made by other chroniclers, but examined for himself the oldest Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, and German documents, to understand which thoroughly he studied, in his old age, several foreign languages. His works offer abundant and reliable material not only for Polish, but also for general, history.'
    In this account, we read of Tatar (Mongol) archers killing people with arrows. Now, Jan Dlugosz does mention that ' many of them are wearing no armour'. But if 'many' are wearing no armor, then the remainder must be wearing armor, or the sentence would have been 'none of them are wearing armor'. The armor being worn is not specified, and no individual is specifically named as being killed through his armor, but this account does show, by deduction, armored persons being killed by archery, and the normal armor at that time and place (1241, Liegnitz, Poland) was generally considered to be chain mail, so this is another example of arrows penetrating chain mail.

    8. "The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville" by John of Joinville. Quoting from Chapter XIV, entitled "HOW THE KING AND ALL HIS MEN FELL INTO THE HANDS OF THE SARACENS, THE MASSACRE OF THE SICK, AND THE CAPTURE OF THE FUGITIVES IN THE BOATS."
    'The mounted Saracens on the bank shot arrows at us because we would not come to them. My people had dressed me in a jousting hauberk, which I had put on so that the arrows which fell into our vessel should not wound me.'
    Now, in this account, he was sick, but his men had been engaged with the enemy before putting out from shore, so in all probabilities, they were already armored, and it is possible he was also. Yet they had dressed him in "jousting" armor to protect him from the arrows. "Jousting" armor is not the normal chain mail of combat, but special armor designed to protect from a couched lance being driven forward by a man on a 2000 pound horse at about 20 miles an hour, while the person wearing the armor is traveling about 20 miles an hour in the other direction on a 2000 pound horse. This is considerably more than any force that could be exerted by any arrow, so of course, if it would stop the penetration of a lance tip,  it would probably stop arrows. But it was not 'just' chain mail. The chain mail was what he had been wearing before his men dressed him in armor that WOULD protect him from arrows. So, though this is not a pure example of arrows penetrating chain mail, it is evidence that chain mail was not considered by him or his men as sufficient to stop arrows. They were there, and they had faced the Saracen arrows, so I think their opinion might be a bit better than ours.

    9. "The Chronicles of Froissart" by Jean Froissart. Quoting from his account of the battle of Poitiers:
    'II. The Battle of Poitiers
4. Of the Battle of Poitiers between the Prince of Wales and the French King
    As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights,
    True to say, the archers did their company that day great advantage; for they shot so thick that the Frenchmen wist not on what side to take heed, and little and little the Englishmen won ground on them.
    Anon the prince with his company met with the battle of Almains, whereof the earl of Sarrebruck, the earl Nassau and the earl Nidau were captains, but in a short space they were put to flight: the archers shot so wholly together that none durst come in their dangers: they slew many a man that could not come to no ransom: these three earls was there slain, and divers other knights and squires of their company,'
    In this story, Froissart does not specifically say that anyone was wearing armor. But really, does he have to do so. It is generally accepted that at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 AD, armor was worn, generally chain mail armor, at least by the mounted Knights and nobility. This account indicates that the archers were primarily responsible for the death of many men who could have been ransomed, had they been captured alive, including three French Earls who were slain there, and several others, including 'knights and squires'. Common persons were not usually held for 'ransom'. Only those with power, money or position were worth holding, as they were the only ones who could pay a ransom. And if they had money for ransom, it stands to reason that they had money for armor. Froissart is considered as the main and most important chronicler of the first half of the Hundred Years War, though he was not 'high-born'.

    10. "The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet" by Enguerrand de Monstrelet Quoting from vol. 1. referring to the battle of Agincourt in 1415.
    'When the French observed the English thus advance, they drew up each under his banner, with his helmet on his head: they were, at the same time, admonished by the constable, and others of the princes, to confess their sins with sincere contrition and to fight boldly against the enemy. The English loudly sounded their trumpets as they approached, and the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the visors of their helmets; thus the distance was now but small between the two armies, although the French had retired some paces. Before, however, the general attack commenced, numbers of the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen. At length the English gained on them so much, and were so close, that excepting the front line, and such as had shortened their lances, the enemy could not raise their hands against them. The division under sir Clugnet de Brabant, of eight hundred men-at-arms, who were intended to break through the English archers, were reduced to seven score, who vainly attempted it. True it is, that sir William de Saveuses, who had been also ordered on this service, quitted his troop, thinking they would follow him, to attack the English, but he was shot dead from off his horse.'
    This account of the famous battle of Agincourt comes from Enguerrand de Monstrelet (d.1453), governor of Cambrai and supporter of the French crown. The French here tried to keep the arrows from hitting their visors because they knew the arrows might go through that relatively 'unarmored' area easily. This may be the only thing the French ever learned in relation to the English longbow, as they repeatedly failed to change their tactics when facing archers. It did them little good to keep the arrows from their visors, as it states above, 'numbers of the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen.' And it mentions that 800 men-at-arms were reduced to 140 (seven score) before they could attack the archers. And it mentions Sir William de Saveuses as being shot dead from off his horse. Note, it does not say the horse was killed out from under him. While this account does not specifically state that any of these men were 'armored', other than with helmets, the term men-at-arms usually was used to refer to men wearing armor, not just men using weapons, as the term 'armed' or 'unarmed' was used in the Middle Ages frequently to distinguish between armored or unarmored persons. It is generally thought, with the French being so 'station' conscious, that horsemen at this time, were almost all 'armored', especially on the French side. The cavalry were the 'elite' of the French army. They wouldn't let some unarmored farmer on his plow horse join them in a charge. It was their very attitudes along this line that led to their repeated defeats at the hands of the English. They would rather lose with their 'honor' and 'station' intact, than to change to using tactics that they considered were 'below their station'. And they did. Lose, that is. For a reference to men-at-arms (actually referred to in the text as men of arms) refer to Number 9. above, about Poitiers, where will be found, 'As soon as the men of arms entered, the archers began to shoot on both sides and did slay and hurt horses and knights,'