Medival iron point question (Re post)

[bdog]

Re posted from the arrow section :
Hey all....been a long time since last post but I ran across something and I'd like the opinion of the board on it. I was at our local Renaissance fair and I saw a guy with a bunch of reproduction medieval points, including one that I'm sure we've all heard refer ed to as a "rope cutter" point. He was of the opinion that the popular idea was incorrect and that these were actually a small game or bird point. The design looks like a crescent moon with the inside radius of the curve sharpened and facing down range (towards the target) it's a common design throughout the world I saw examples from Asian and India as well. What's the general consensus on this point? I looked at the Internet and there was no real conclusive information easily found. Thoughts?

[WillS]

Anybody who thinks it's a "rope cutter" hasn't got a basic understanding of how an arrow works - they spin when they fly. 

I think the general consensus is that they're hunting points for game / birds.  I've never heard an intelligent argument against that idea.

[bdog]

I accept that the rope cutting theory is a little far fetched. They clearly could cut a rope but the practicality of hitting it seems low. I should point out that Ive used modern turkey guillotine heads that function similarly and they neatly decapitate a turkey. This is with a modern compound bow so the poundage is similar but the accuracy is much higher. It is interesting to note that this design was found on battlefields so it was used in combat. Perhaps archers carried a selection of game points for foraging and shot them in the heat of battle without noticing? There is a video showing styles of iron points found at Jamestown and the historian refers to this point as a game point but states it might also be used against larger game by cutting a tendon. Possibly used as an anti horse weapon? Its interesting that the design is so common but we dont know for sure its purpose.....

[WillS]

How common were they actually?  You say some have been found at battle sites, but do you know how many?

The reason I ask it that the Type 16 has been found in various places, and many believe that it was one of the most common types of military head but I'm firmly of the belief that it was far more rare than that.  In fact a couple of weeks ago I had a lengthy discussion with Mark Stretton about that very issue, and the conversation convinced me that the Type 16 was far more rare than people seem to think - not least due to it's complicated construction method (fire-welding the tangs) which simply doesn't make sense for mass-producing military arrowheads.

As for archers shooting various types - I can't imagine that's possible somehow but I do like your idea of shooting a hunting arrow by mistake.  Personally I think that during combat archers would be supplied with sheaves of Type 10 or similar arrowheads (if we're discussing mid 13thC to late 15thC) and wouldn't need to use anything else but I can definitely imagine somebody running out, and grabbing the nearest ammunition available which could well be a personal hunting arrow.

[meanewood]

Interesting topic but very hard to find evidence to back up any 21st century opinion.

Many illustrations show the large swept broad heads in use on the battlefield and they were undoubtedly used as horse killers!

Bodkins were developed to penetrate both mail and plate but I think I saw a video that showed the bodkin wasn't all that good against other, more common early protection such as leather and linen.

A cutting edge is better for these, so the development of the Tudor bodkin combined the bodkin point with a cutting edge which gives a more all purpose warhead!

[WillS]

The Tudor bodkin is pretty useless against plate.  It was developed as a super-cheap head for piercing textile armour such as a gambeson, and was obviously one of the very last head types created, as gunpowder soon ruined everything.

I don't think the swept broadheads were used at all.  I'd chalk that up as artistic license, to look more impressive in paintings.  If you were painting a field of archers, by the time you got to the arrowhead and tried accurately portraying a Type 10 bodkin nobody would be able to see it.  A massive, cartoon style swallowtail is far better for artwork, and totally impractical on the battlefield, but as they existed as hunting heads I imagine the artists had no qualms about depicting them.

A good solid bodkin or lozenge plate cutter will kill or drop a horse just as easily as a silly broadhead point, plus they actually go through plate.  The minute you start giving different heads for different jobs in the same battle, you're getting into Hollywood-style myths. 

One head, designed for maximum use in the period is all you need.  Otherwise you're either asking each archer to have numerous types (impractical for many reasons) or dividing groups of archers to do specific jobs (also impractical).  You're also saying that they are being handed sheaves of huge swept swallowtail-tipped arrows - where are they being stored? You can't use them with arrowbags...

[Del the cat]

...
A good solid bodkin or lozenge plate cutter will kill or drop a horse just as easily as a silly broadhead point...

Not sure how you justify that?
I was under the impression that an arrow kills a big mammal by haemorrhage and isn't that why broadheads are used for hunting?
In contrast:-
I like your point about not being able to keep swallowtails in an arrow bag.
I have no opinion of my own to offer I'm happy to admit I don't know...
Del

[WillS]

Surely if any animal gets punched through the lung, heart, brain or any major organs / arteries etc by a half inch wide 4" long hunk of iron, sent from a 150# bow it's not gonna feel very happy about it...?

Aren't hunting specific heads such as broadheads or swallowtails for use with much smaller arrows and much lighter bows?  You don't need such a specialised head with all that weight and brute strength behind it - at least that's what makes sense to me.  Certainly don't know for sure!

[Del the cat]

No... but it won't "drop a horse".
Read up some hunting stories to get an idea of the effect of arrows on mammals.
I don't s'pose anyone is going to conduct field trials...
Del

[meanewood]

I just love 21st century opinions.

That's why I don't take mine very seriously.

[WillS]

Del, I don't think hunting stories would tell us anything unless they're hunting with warbows.  The power and impact is vastly different.  I really do think a horse is going to "hit the deck" if it gets shot with a warbow.  I'm not suggesting it will fly backwards in some ludicrous Hollywood style cartwheel, or miraculously crumple either but it's not going to carry on without noticing, which is what I've heard happens when something like a deer is shot with a knitting needle arrow from a compound bow.

I reckon if you punch a big enough hole through a horse it's going to bleed out pretty damn fast, or panic and cause complete mayhem around it before dropping somewhere.  I suggest we try a few experiments - there are plenty of riding schools where I live, I'll see if they have any suitable horses for shooting at.

[son of massey]

To be fair, killing the horse isn't probably necessary. As was mentioned, if they get hit they will know it. And a horse, after getting hit and noticing it, is not going to be the best behaved animal and the rider, even if uninjured, is probably going to have a difficult time actually directing the animal. For all intents and purposes, at that point the horse is out of the fight and killing it is, literally, overkill.

I agree that specialized arrow types is unlikely, especially as the archers were likely asked to shoot when the enemy was at their maximum range but not necessarily at a range where the archers would be accurate enough to target individual soldiers or limbs or the rider atop the horse...

SOM

[Del the cat]

Yup +1
I'll go along with that... I was just objecting to the phrase "drop a horse"
Del

[meanewood]

One point I'd like to make is, a lot of the topics we discuss concerning medieval archery are based on little or no evidence.

That's fine , we all come up with our own theories and ideas in order to fill in the blanks.

Many of us conduct experimental archaeology without even realising it.

When, however, we have contemporary paintings that show a certain arrowhead, a type of nock or even apparent reflex in bows, we should not dismiss it easily as artistic licence.

Why ignore what is starring us in the face, unless there was proof otherwise.

[Pat B]

There is a difference in hunting broadheads and warfare broadheads. IMO    For a hunting head you want a well placed shot with an extremely sharp broadhead for fast, humane kill. In warfare a serious wound usually requires one or two healthy folks to care for the wounded soldier, taking them out of the fight. Back in medieval times I doubt that a humane kill mattered.
 I've seen pics of these crescent heads, both in medieval European and ancient Asian arrow and wondered what they were used for.
Just seeing one in use would scare the heck out of me, but I'm a chicken when it comes to warfare.