ARROWS vs ARMOUR 2 - FULL MEDIEVAL ARMOUR TESTED

[Rico]

‘Arrows vs Armour’ is back and we are shooting medieval war arrows at the top half of an armoured knight using armour and arrows that are correct in every detail. This film shows exactly what happened……. Thousands of knights were slain by the English archers at battles like Agincourt, even though they wore full armour; we just didn’t know how and this film goes a long way to explaining what actually occurred. TV companies have no interest in doing these tests for real with correct armour and real experts who talk about what they see, not about what the script tells them to say. We film it and we show it. No pre-written scripts, no hype, no fluff, no predetermined TV outcomes; just factual truth. All filmed by professional TV crew, but working for us, our way.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I love this kind of experimental archaeology.

And it's impressive how well the armour actually protects, even against the best possible bow firing the best arrows at close range by an expert archer who has no fear and can take his time to aim against a motionless target.

 

[Rico]

Like the man said — armour worked most of the time... that’s why it was used.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I never doubted that.

But the idea that the English longbow was some kind of superweapon that made short work of knights is now properly debunked. Powerful bow - yes. Automatic knight killer - no.

It also sheds new light on what actually happened that day at Azincourt.

 

[Nemesis]

This armor is effective against arrows in the same way that modern armor is effective against bullets.

The problem is......the armor weighs too much to cover everything. Same problem as with modern armor.

Based on what we saw here, I bet many of the French died of hits to areas that had no plate. Legs, sides, neck, etc.. Lots of bleeding out (or dying later of infection) or men who had wounds that took them out of the fight until someone came over to finish them.

I do wonder if all armor was created equal. These plates are less effective if you don't make them right.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Based on what we saw here, I bet many of the French died of hits to areas that had no plate. Legs, sides, neck, etc.. Lots of bleeding out (or dying later of infection) or men who had wounds that took them out of the fight until someone came over to finish them.

Yes, I think the same. The video explains that knights at that point in time rarely wore plate protection for their groin and legs. They would have been "mobility killed" as they struggled on foot across the soft ground.

But lesser bows could also have done that. Longbows did it better, yes, but it's not really the story about the longbow as a super-weapon that's traditionally been told about this battle.

I don't think the reason the knights were not fully armoured was the weight. I think it was because the technology had not yet progressed enough. In the late middle ages, plate armour became more widespread, and it began to cover the whole body. Even for lowborn men-at-arms.