30 Jun 2007 08:08:39
yazig
History Channel

I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as wrong,
the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
ancient greeks.

In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow. Guy shooting it
looked particularly average. Not someone that trains a lot to be able
to draw that bow. I don't even remember him using any finger
protection...and i don't think he was using a thumb ring or anything
else.
Anyone else have any problem with this?

p.s. I shoot a 70 lb recurve. When I am shooting a fair amount of
people comment on its draw weight...its pretty uncommon.



30 Jun 2007 11:09:59
Herbert Cannon
Re: History Channel


> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow. Guy shooting it
> looked particularly average. Not someone that trains a lot to be able
> to draw that bow. I don't even remember him using any finger
> protection...and i don't think he was using a thumb ring or anything
> else.
> Anyone else have any problem with this?

Yeah I am a traditional archer. I know the Mongols and the turks had pretty
powerful composite bows. However I never have seen anything on ancient Greek
bows. Does not sound right though. Even the old English longbows had draw
wieghts between 120 and 160 pounds and they were powerful bows. Englsih
archers were trained from the time they were 4 years old.
>
> p.s. I shoot a 70 lb recurve. When I am shooting a fair amount of
> people comment on its draw weight...its pretty uncommon.

I shoot a 40lb bow. I dont need anything more powerful. Used to shoot 50 to
55 lb bows - turned me into a snap shooter. Now I am trying to break that
bad habit with the 40lb bows.




30 Jun 2007 10:51:26
Mike
Re: History Channel

> 160 lbs. Its a small
> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow. Guy shooting it
> looked particularly average. Not someone that trains a lot to be able
> to draw that bow. I don't even remember him using any finger
> protection...and i don't think he was using a thumb ring or anything
> else.
> Anyone else have any problem with this?

You mean the guy on the show was supposedly shooting at 160lbs without
any aids?

Not very believable if that is the case.

-Mike K.



30 Jun 2007 13:19:07
rigger
Re: History Channel

On Jun 30, 8:08 am, yazig <gkorne...@msn.com > wrote:
> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as wrong,

It's still TV with all the mistakes and politics this entails.

A few days ago I was watching a semi-documentary
about the L.A.Swat teams and the "newscaster" said
their sniper, strapped to a strut beneath a small heli-
copter, used a "Savage .308 sniper rifle" which was
"deadly" accurate up to a "mile" away. Pretty good
shooting, don't you think?

Now if they'd said ".50 BMG"; but I'm not sure if
anyone would like to wrestle with one while hanging
from a helicopter. LOL

dennis
in nca



02 Jul 2007 22:26:53
Kirk Lawson
Re: History Channel

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:

> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as wrong,
> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
> ancient greeks.
>
> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.

1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.

2) At what distance?

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 00:04:47
David L. Burkhead
Re: History Channel

Kirk Lawson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:
>
>> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
>> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
>> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as
>> wrong,
>> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
>> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
>> ancient greeks.
>>
>> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
>> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
>> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
>> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
>> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
>> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
>> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
>> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.
>
> 1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.
>
> 2) At what distance?

At an SCCA event once, the argument came up about whether a hit by archery
("combat archery" at these kinds of events involved bows of something like
20 lb pull, heavily padded arrows, and only used against people in full
armor and helmets) in the head should "count" or if the helm can be presumed
to turn the arrow.

They proceeded to perform an impromptu test. One of the competition archers
used his 70-80 lb longbow and arrows with a medieval "bodkin point." For a
target they used a "great helm with an animal head (don't remember what
exactly, I _think_ pig since that's not unlikely to be available if someone
was doing some period roasting) stuffed up inside it. and padding and
skullcap as per period.

The arrow went through one side of the helm, through the padding, through
the iron skullcap, through the head, through the other side of the head,
skullcap, and padding, and protruded nearly a foot from the other side of
the helm.

Rule thus established: arrow to the head counts as kills.

Thus, I have to wonder about the "test" described above.

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com-- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays





03 Jul 2007 13:59:21
Gernot Hassenpflug
Re: History Channel

"David L. Burkhead" <dburkhead@sff.net > writes:

> Kirk Lawson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:
>>
>>> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
>>> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
>>> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as
>>> wrong,
>>> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
>>> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
>>> ancient greeks.
>>>
>>> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
>>> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
>>> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
>>> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
>>> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
>>> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
>>> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
>>> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.
>>
>> 1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.
>>
>> 2) At what distance?
>
> At an SCCA event once, the argument came up about whether a hit by archery
> ("combat archery" at these kinds of events involved bows of something like
> 20 lb pull, heavily padded arrows, and only used against people in full
> armor and helmets) in the head should "count" or if the helm can be presumed
> to turn the arrow.
>
> They proceeded to perform an impromptu test. One of the competition archers
> used his 70-80 lb longbow and arrows with a medieval "bodkin point." For a
> target they used a "great helm with an animal head (don't remember what
> exactly, I _think_ pig since that's not unlikely to be available if someone
> was doing some period roasting) stuffed up inside it. and padding and
> skullcap as per period.
>
> The arrow went through one side of the helm, through the padding, through
> the iron skullcap, through the head, through the other side of the head,
> skullcap, and padding, and protruded nearly a foot from the other side of
> the helm.
>
> Rule thus established: arrow to the head counts as kills.

:-) I remember seeing the impressive armour displays in Vienna, and
the even more impressive tell-tale holes of cross-bow bolts all the
way through them. Ugh!
--
BOFH excuse #354:

Chewing gum on /dev/sd3c


02 Jul 2007 23:48:08
Scary
Re: History Channel

On Jul 3, 2:59 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@nict.go.jp > wrote:
> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kirk Lawson wrote:
> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:
>
> >>> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
> >>> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
> >>> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as
> >>> wrong,
> >>> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
> >>> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
> >>> ancient greeks.
>
> >>> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
> >>> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
> >>> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
> >>> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
> >>> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
> >>> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
> >>> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
> >>> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.
>
> >> 1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.
>
> >> 2) At what distance?
>
> > At an SCCA event once, the argument came up about whether a hit by archery
> > ("combat archery" at these kinds of events involved bows of something like
> > 20 lb pull, heavily padded arrows, and only used against people in full
> > armor and helmets) in the head should "count" or if the helm can be presumed
> > to turn the arrow.
>
> > They proceeded to perform an impromptu test. One of the competition archers
> > used his 70-80 lb longbow and arrows with a medieval "bodkin point." For a
> > target they used a "great helm with an animal head (don't remember what
> > exactly, I _think_ pig since that's not unlikely to be available if someone
> > was doing some period roasting) stuffed up inside it. and padding and
> > skullcap as per period.
>
> > The arrow went through one side of the helm, through the padding, through
> > the iron skullcap, through the head, through the other side of the head,
> > skullcap, and padding, and protruded nearly a foot from the other side of
> > the helm.
>
> > Rule thus established: arrow to the head counts as kills.
>
> :-) I remember seeing the impressive armour displays in Vienna, and
> the even more impressive tell-tale holes of cross-bow bolts all the
> way through them. Ugh!
> --
> BOFH excuse #354:
>
> Chewing gum on /dev/sd3c- Hide quoted text -
>
I heard something about silk shirts being an effective protection
against arrows, apparently it stops the arrow penetrating too deep and
makes it easy too pull out.

Scary




03 Jul 2007 15:11:02
Mike
Re: History Channel

> I heard something about silk shirts being an effective protection
> against arrows, apparently it stops the arrow penetrating too deep and
> makes it easy too pull out.

I had always thought that the "easier to pull out" part was the big
plus.

-Mike K.



03 Jul 2007 11:25:09
David L. Burkhead
Re: History Channel

Scary wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2:59 pm, Gernot Hassenpflug <ger...@nict.go.jp> wrote:
>> "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Kirk Lawson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
>>>>> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However
>>>>> recently I've heard/seen some things on these channels that
>>>>> strike me as
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
>>>>> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling
>>>>> the ancient greeks.
>>
>>>>> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
>>>>> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the
>>>>> other
>>>>> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
>>>>> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't
>>>>> doubt that both of these are better than nothing, and would
>>>>> probably just
>>>>> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the
>>>>> draw weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a
>>>>> small
>>>>> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.
>>
>>>> 1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.
>>
>>>> 2) At what distance?
>>
>>> At an SCCA event once, the argument came up about whether a hit by
>>> archery ("combat archery" at these kinds of events involved bows of
>>> something like 20 lb pull, heavily padded arrows, and only used
>>> against people in full armor and helmets) in the head should
>>> "count" or if the helm can be presumed to turn the arrow.
>>
>>> They proceeded to perform an impromptu test. One of the
>>> competition archers used his 70-80 lb longbow and arrows with a
>>> medieval "bodkin point." For a target they used a "great helm with
>>> an animal head (don't remember what exactly, I _think_ pig since
>>> that's not unlikely to be available if someone was doing some
>>> period roasting) stuffed up inside it. and padding and skullcap as
>>> per period.
>>
>>> The arrow went through one side of the helm, through the padding,
>>> through the iron skullcap, through the head, through the other side
>>> of the head, skullcap, and padding, and protruded nearly a foot
>>> from the other side of the helm.
>>
>>> Rule thus established: arrow to the head counts as kills.
>>
>> :-) I remember seeing the impressive armour displays in Vienna, and
>> the even more impressive tell-tale holes of cross-bow bolts all the
>> way through them. Ugh!
>> --
>> BOFH excuse #354:
>>
>> Chewing gum on /dev/sd3c- Hide quoted text -
>>
> I heard something about silk shirts being an effective protection
> against arrows, apparently it stops the arrow penetrating too deep and
> makes it easy too pull out.

My understanding is that the silk doesn't stop the arrow so much rather than
getting pulled into the wound with it makes it easier to remove arrows with
barbed heads. I haven't really studied the issue myself though.

--
David L. Burkhead "Dum Vivimus Vivamus"
mailto:dburkhead@sff.net "While we live, let us live."
My webcomic Cold Servings
http://www.coldservings.com-- Back from hiatus!
Updates Wednesdays





03 Jul 2007 15:22:08
Dan Winsor
Re: History Channel

On Jul 3, 11:25 am, "David L. Burkhead" <dburkh...@sff.net > wrote:
>
> My understanding is that the silk doesn't stop the arrow so much rather than
> getting pulled into the wound with it makes it easier to remove arrows with
> barbed heads. I haven't really studied the issue myself though.

I'd be happy to find you some test subjects...

--
Dan Winsor

Soy un poco loco en el coco.



03 Jul 2007 17:56:01
Kirk Lawson
Re: History Channel

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:59:21 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:

> :-) I remember seeing the impressive armour displays in Vienna, and
> the even more impressive tell-tale holes of cross-bow bolts all the
> way through them. Ugh!

I have (had) friends into armouring who've done destructive tests of
various sorts. It's rather interesting what armour will and won't protect
against and under what circumstances.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 17:56:12
Kirk Lawson
Re: History Channel

On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:04:47 -0400, David L. Burkhead wrote:

> Kirk Lawson wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:08:39 -0700, yazig wrote:
>>
>>> I'm always one to generally take what the "smart" channels say as
>>> truth, discovery channel, history channel, tlc etc. However recently
>>> I've heard/seen some things on these channels that strike me as
>>> wrong,
>>> the most recent during a show (pardon me for not knowing the name,
>>> I'll try and find it) where the whole show seemed to be extolling the
>>> ancient greeks.
>>>
>>> In particular, when discussing how effective greek armor was they
>>> showed two "tests". One involved a bronze breastplate, and the other
>>> a tight cloth weave of some kind meant to be proof against arrows.
>>> Fine , fine, good good. Arrows were defeated by both. I don't doubt
>>> that both of these are better than nothing, and would probably just
>>> taken it for truth, except for the fact that they mentioned the draw
>>> weight of the composite bow they were using. 160 lbs. Its a small
>>> bow, a composite...looks to me to be a horsemans bow.
>>
>> 1) yeah, seems to be an error. Maybe they meant 60.
>>
>> 2) At what distance?
>
> At an SCA event once, the argument came up about whether a hit by archery
> ("combat archery" at these kinds of events involved bows of something like
> 20 lb pull, heavily padded arrows, and only used against people in full
> armor and helmets) in the head should "count" or if the helm can be presumed
> to turn the arrow.
>
> They proceeded to perform an impromptu test. One of the competition archers
> used his 70-80 lb longbow and arrows with a medieval "bodkin point." For a
> target they used a "great helm with an animal head (don't remember what
> exactly, I _think_ pig since that's not unlikely to be available if someone
> was doing some period roasting) stuffed up inside it. and padding and
> skullcap as per period.
>
> The arrow went through one side of the helm, through the padding, through
> the iron skullcap, through the head, through the other side of the head,
> skullcap, and padding, and protruded nearly a foot from the other side of
> the helm.
>
> Rule thus established: arrow to the head counts as kills.
>
> Thus, I have to wonder about the "test" described above.

Yeah, direct fire from a Longbow is awesome.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts



03 Jul 2007 17:56:12
Kirk Lawson
Re: History Channel

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:48:08 -0700, Scary wrote:

> I heard something about silk shirts being an effective protection
> against arrows, apparently it stops the arrow penetrating too deep and
> makes it easy too pull out.

And it is false.

I've had friends (over at the Arador and the Armor Archive back when I
still participated there) do tests using all sorts of materials. Silk
just couldn't be made to do anything worth-while for protection vrs arrows.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

FREE historic Western Martial Arts manuals:
http://www.lulu.com/lawson

Western Martial Arts - http://cbd.atspace.com/

"well I wanna wrap it up and swim in it until I drown - my Moral Standing is
lying down..."

"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts