Factors that influence the outcome of a fight, in rank order.

[gaylolis]

Plot armor.

there's also the skill of their mouth as well

it's so like a xuanhuan / xianxia mc to make enemies vomit blood with your insult

 

[Snusmumriken]

Who said anything about running with a bow drawn? Why are you jumping to that? You fire then you can move. Well-armed knight will not be as light-footed as a lightly armed archer even if their base speed is the same (no advantage there)

And as far as I've noticed - your well-armed opponent also has the advantage of hiding behind cover and being able to close into a running away opponent? You are using 3 separate advantages to overcome just one - range.

Let me tell you - it is extremely hard to kill a person that is running away (in a medieval setting)

And again what would armour do if the opponent simply isn't there? What I am having an issue with here is the fact that you assume that fight starts once both combatants are aware of each other and there is only a win/loss outcome and no other. Which for me sounds more like a designated fight (duel/tournament/sparring) rather than a broad fight in all its gruesomeness. A fight where you can run away to live another day and come back tomorrow to an unsuspecting opponent. a fight that can start from an ambush. Or a fight where you bloody your opponent only to come back later and finish him off. Or a fight where there is no time limit on how long you can keep your opponent on the edge until they give up.

 

[Jemini]

Who said anything about running with a bow drawn? Why are you jumping to that? You fire then you can move. Well-armed knight will not be as light-footed as a lightly armed archer even if their base speed is the same (no advantage there)

And as far as I've noticed - your well-armed opponent also has the advantage of hiding behind cover and being able to close into a running away opponent? You are using 3 separate advantages to overcome just one - range.

Let me tell you - it is extremely hard to kill a person that is running away (in a medieval setting)

And again what would armour do if the opponent simply isn't there? What I am having an issue with here is the fact that you assume that fight starts once both combatants are aware of each other and there is only a win/loss outcome and no other. Which for me sounds more like a designated fight (duel/tournament/sparring) rather than a broad fight in all its gruesomeness. A fight where you can run away to live another day and come back tomorrow to an unsuspecting opponent. a fight that can start from an ambush. Or a fight where you bloody your opponent only to come back later and finish him off. Or a fight where there is no time limit on how long you can keep your opponent on the edge until they give up.

Again, you are misinterpreting my words and twisting them to your own ends. I gave 5 examples of how 5 different advantages can INDIVIDUALLY overcome an archer with a bow. If you had all 5, the archer wouldn't even stand a chance. Armor alone would make the archer a complete joke.

You are also becoming subject to another myth about armor. I have already tackled the armor piercing arrow. Next, armor does not slow you down. The only thing it limits is the articulation of your joints and the field of view through your helmet. You can run with armor on every bit as fast as you can run without armor on.

The guy will not be able to stop to shoot if he's being chased. Guy with an arrow will get off maybe 3 arrows max before the armored opponent can get into threat range. This means after 2 shots, he will have to start running. Once he stops shooting and starts running, he won't get off a single shot from that point forward. That point on, all armor guy has to do is pin arrow guy down at some point.

Again, archers are only any good shooting in vollies. You need dozens of archers in order to make a difference in combat.

 

[Tropic_Panda]

Bow and arrow is basically a missile weapon system, that to achieve maximum destruction at maximum range, accuracy must be sacrificed and replaced with volume of fire. However, if you think that the bow and arrow is impractical at close range against an armored opponent, then you will get nasty surprise.

Most professional archers (not militia) in the medieval era, have to be able to kill a moving human size target at 60 meter in one shot. It is possible because they train since they are able to walk. While modern soldiers specialize in silent killing, they have to be able to kill a stationary target at 30 meter.

About the arrow's penetration to body armor, well, most heavy armored units in the medieval era were wiped out or slaughtered by an archer unit, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

 

[gogo7966]

i feel like this is an important time to clarify what heavy armor is in this context

 

[AKnightWithaKnife]

To me range and height really matter. In a 1v1 duel you want to have more range and height than your opponent as you can gain further control of said duel. I do wrestling and usually the taller combatant wins as he doesn’t have to be as vulnerable when doing pokes or lunges and as result can keep more of there power budget.

in terms of story writing many authors(begrudgingly) where inspired by anime and in those universes except maybe dragon ball speed is king. dosent matter if you get hit at Mach 10 if you don’t get hit at all. Also it makes fight scenes super short in comparison

Bow and arrow is basically a missile weapon system, that to achieve maximum destruction at maximum range, accuracy must be sacrificed and replaced with volume of fire. However, if you think that the bow and arrow is impractical at close range against an armored opponent, then you will get nasty surprise.

Most professional archers (not militia) in the medieval era, have to be able to kill a moving human size target at 60 meter in one shot. It is possible because they train since they are able to walk. While modern soldiers specialize in silent killing, they have to be able to kill a stationary target at 30 meter.

About the arrow's penetration to body armor, well, most heavy armored units in the medieval era were wiped out or slaughtered by an archer unit, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

I’m pretty sure heavy infantry didn’t exist in the context your using it in the medieval ages

 

[Snusmumriken]

And I was talking about range - you were the one who locked in on bows specifically. And all these examples you provided are examples that might overcome the distance. until they get close.

Take a terrain advantage - both dressed well both have weapons bow(B) starts from afar there are covers and sun is shining into B face, the person A goes cover to cover until eventually he succeeds and reaches person B. Now A is somewhat winded (from all that running if he was recovering in there archer might decide to gain distance) and he has to start CQC. B drops the bow and pulls the sword. (when I said greater distance I didn't mean only great distance and pick your nose and do nothing up close.)

And yes armour does slow you down because I am not talking about 5-10 seconds of CQC where you can do jumps and somersaults. I am talking about that running to reach your opponent and then possibly chase him on the battlefield. So no your heavily armoured knight will not be playing tag with anyone for longer than a single rush (especially in helmet)

And you are still ignoring my other points.

 

[Tropic_Panda]

I’m pretty sure heavy infantry didn’t exist in the context your using it in the medieval ages

Heavy infantry consisted of heavily armed and armoured infantrymen who were trained to mount frontal assaults and/or anchor the defensive center of a battle line. This differentiated them from light infantry who are relatively mobile and lightly armoured skirmisher troops intended for screening, scouting and other tactical roles unsuited to soldiers carrying heavier loads. Heavy infantry typically made use of dense battlefield formations, such as shield wall or phalanx, multiplying their effective weight of arms with force concentration.

Heavy infantry were critical to many ancient armies, such as the Greek hoplites, Macedonian phalangites, and Roman legionaries. After the fall of Rome, heavy infantry declined in Europe, but returned to dominance in the Late Middle Ages with Swiss pikemen and German Landsknechts. With the rise of firearms during early modern warfare, dense formations became increasingly hazardous and heavy armours were either ineffective or too cumbersome to be tactically useful. By the early 18th century, heavy infantry were replaced by line infantry armed with muskets and bayonets and no armour.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_infantry

To me range and height really matter. In a 1v1 duel you want to have more range and height than your opponent as you can gain further control of said duel. I do wrestling and usually the taller combatant wins as he doesn’t have to be as vulnerable when doing pokes or lunges and as result can keep more of there power budget.

It is definitely better to be small-ish and stocky. The best height for a wrestler is about 5’8” to 5’10”. To give you some Contect, Jordan Burroughs (the Postor child for the Double Leg Takedown and best wrestler in the world at 74 kg) is 5’8”. There are also many other world level competitors that are taller than that. One being David Taylor, who is the pastor child for the Ankle-Pick, my personal favorite takedown that favors longer wrestlers like himself at 6’0”. So sometimes, it depends on your style, but the best height for the person not wrestling in a special niche is 5’8” to about 5’10”.

Source: quote from a good wrestler, anyone who do a wrestler will know it.

 

[Jemini]

Bow and arrow is basically a missile weapon system, that to achieve maximum destruction at maximum range, accuracy must be sacrificed and replaced with volume of fire. However, if you think that the bow and arrow is impractical at close range against an armored opponent, then you will get nasty surprise.

Most professional archers (not militia) in the medieval era, have to be able to kill a moving human size target at 60 meter in one shot. It is possible because they train since they are able to walk. While modern soldiers specialize in silent killing, they have to be able to kill a stationary target at 30 meter.

About the arrow's penetration to body armor, well, most heavy armored units in the medieval era were wiped out or slaughtered by an archer unit, be it heavy infantry or heavy cavalry.

Right, time to put this myth to bed once and for all.

The only reason archers are effective is because, with the exception of the Roman legions, NO country shy of the modern age has had the funding to outfit all their soldiers. So, essentially what would happen is the vollies of arrows would slaughter the unarmored units in the group, leaving the fully armored unit leader as one of the few survivors. At that point, he's easy pickings for your melee units.

Arrows cannot pierce full armor. Not European Knight era full plate anyway.

And I was talking about range - you were the one who locked in on bows specifically. And all these examples you provided are examples that might overcome the distance. until they get close.

Take a terrain advantage - both dressed well both have weapons bow(B) starts from afar there are covers and sun is shining into B face, the person A goes cover to cover until eventually he succeeds and reaches person B. Now A is somewhat winded (from all that running if he was recovering in there archer might decide to gain distance) and he has to start CQC. B drops the bow and pulls the sword. (when I said greater distance I didn't mean only great distance and pick your nose and do nothing up close.)

And yes armour does slow you down because I am not talking about 5-10 seconds of CQC where you can do jumps and somersaults. I am talking about that running to reach your opponent and then possibly chase him on the battlefield. So no your heavily armoured knight will not be playing tag with anyone for longer than a single rush (especially in helmet)

And you are still ignoring my other points.

You were talking about using modern age military technology as some kind of debunking of the place I put range on the list. A completely invalid argument.

I told you that your argument is invalid because I was talking about medieval weapons technology, and melee in particular. This is the scenario most frequently written about in most author's works.

Then, point already proven, your argument already shown to be in shambles, I decided to add insult to injury and grant you bows since they very narrowly fit the initial criteria I set up in the OP. I then outlined why the initial list still applies to bows by the organizing criteria I provided at the start.

I have already won the argument within the defined terms. This is no longer a debate. All we are doing now is educating you on the manner in which historical weapons and equipment work, because you have made several comments that suggest you really don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

That window is getting smaller too. In the example you just gave, assuming extreme distance, the fully armored guy can simply approach the archer at a leisurely walking pace. The archer would have to run and return fire every time he sees the fully armored knight. The arrows would not get through his armor. Eventually, the archer would run out of arrows.

I had confined it to the assumption of a small arena because that's the one scenario that would force the end of the confrontation before it got ridiculous. If you want to broaden the field, then this reduces the archer's chances even more.

The correct way to think of this is not cruise missile Vs armored knight. The correct way to think of this is Tom Hanks' character at the end of Saving Private Ryan, completely spent and out of options at the end of his efforts to defend the bridge, firing his pistol at the tank slowly approaching him because he's otherwise fully out of options.

 

[Snusmumriken]

You are concentrating on the details of the picture (one that I took from the internet after 5 seconds of searching) without trying to understand the general message it was trying to give.
And you are the one who started adding additional detail to your initial post - your original message was about a general "fight" without any other specifications. Hell, even the medieval period was inferred since you were talking about it.
And I also inferred the fact that you imply some small zone and that is the reason why I said this is more of duel\tournament factors for a very specific part of the fight.

Again A and B are equal in all settings. A has any armour you want. B has no protection. What will A do if B doesn't show up or hides? What A will do if he realises he is fighting because the knife is entering his brain through the opening of his helmet?

 

[Tropic_Panda]

Right, time to put this myth to bed once and for all.

The only reason archers are effective is because, with the exception of the Roman legions, NO country shy of the modern age has had the funding to outfit all their soldiers. So, essentially what would happen is the vollies of arrows would slaughter the unarmored units in the group, leaving the fully armored unit leader as one of the few survivors. At that point, he's easy pickings for your melee units.

Arrows cannot pierce full armor. Not European Knight era full plate anyway.

Military Historian Dr David Whetham of King’s College, University of London, Physicist Paul Burke of Cranfield University and Hillary Greenland, Secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Traditional Archery have recently (about 4 years ago) carried out experiments at the MODs UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham, Oxfordshire into the effectiveness of the English War bow [a.k.a. Longbow].

They used bows with 110, 140, and 150 pounds draw weights and a range of different late medieval arrowheads. To make the tests as authentic as possible they examined the skeletal structure of the bodies of medieval bowmen excavated from the battle of Towton and from those drowned on the Mary Rose. They then searched for a modern individual whose bone/muscle structure most closely matched. They found one, Mark Stretton from Leicestershire who was a blacksmith and by pure chance, an avid archer since the age of six.

Some of you will be aware of similar experiments carried out over the last 30 years, which have concluded that “Bodkin” arrowheads were not able to pierce plate armour, and so the hail of arrows was used more to break up enemy formations. Some of these “tests” have been televised, showing such arrowheads buckling or bouncing off late medieval plate armour.

It appears these tests were carried out using bows with only 50-70 pounds draw weight, and the wrong arrowheads were used for the armour being tested. The latest tests using correct period arrowheads have shown that the energy released at impact was 100-120 joules, the equivalent of being hit with a sledgehammer. Such arrows were found to be able to penetrate plate armour at ranges up to 200 meters, enough to kill, or seriously wound the wearer.


In my previous comment i use word 'missile', just to be clear so people do not think it's a modern weapon, i will ad a little explanation i copied from google.


Definition by Oxford Languages

mis·sile
/ˈmisəl/

noun
an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon.

"one of the players was hit on the head by a missile thrown by a spectator"

Sinonim:

projectile

a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.

"the plane disintegrated after being hit by a missile launched from the ground"

 

[Jemini]

Military Historian Dr David Whetham of King’s College, University of London, Physicist Paul Burke of Cranfield University and Hillary Greenland, Secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Traditional Archery have recently (about 4 years ago) carried out experiments at the MODs UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham, Oxfordshire into the effectiveness of the English War bow [a.k.a. Longbow].

They used bows with 110, 140, and 150 pounds draw weights and a range of different late medieval arrowheads. To make the tests as authentic as possible they examined the skeletal structure of the bodies of medieval bowmen excavated from the battle of Towton and from those drowned on the Mary Rose. They then searched for a modern individual whose bone/muscle structure most closely matched. They found one, Mark Stretton from Leicestershire who was a blacksmith and by pure chance, an avid archer since the age of six.

Some of you will be aware of similar experiments carried out over the last 30 years, which have concluded that “Bodkin” arrowheads were not able to pierce plate armour, and so the hail of arrows was used more to break up enemy formations. Some of these “tests” have been televised, showing such arrowheads buckling or bouncing off late medieval plate armour.

It appears these tests were carried out using bows with only 50-70 pounds draw weight, and the wrong arrowheads were used for the armour being tested. The latest tests using correct period arrowheads have shown that the energy released at impact was 100-120 joules, the equivalent of being hit with a sledgehammer. Such arrows were found to be able to penetrate plate armour at ranges up to 200 meters, enough to kill, or seriously wound the wearer.


In my previous comment i use word 'missile', just to be clear so people do not think it's a modern weapon, i will ad a little explanation i copied from google.


Definition by Oxford Languages

mis·sile
/ˈmisəl/

noun
an object which is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon.

"one of the players was hit on the head by a missile thrown by a spectator"

Sinonim:

projectile

a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.

"the plane disintegrated after being hit by a missile launched from the ground"

Alright. So, things have been stepped up a level when I provided a source with that video. Now that things are on that level, and you have just said stuff that directly contradicts the link I gave (they stated the poundage of the bow used in their test. It was MUCH heavier than 50-70 pounds.)

As such, if you are going to speak exactly in contradiction to a link I provided, I am going to need you to provide a link as well.

You are concentrating on the details of the picture (one that I took from the internet after 5 seconds of searching) without trying to understand the general message it was trying to give.
And you are the one who started adding additional detail to your initial post - your original message was about a general "fight" without any other specifications. Hell, even the medieval period was inferred since you were talking about it.
And I also inferred the fact that you imply some small zone and that is the reason why I said this is more of duel\tournament factors for a very specific part of the fight.

Again A and B are equal in all settings. A has any armour you want. B has no protection. What will A do if B doesn't show up or hides? What A will do if he realises he is fighting because the knife is entering his brain through the opening of his helmet?

I feel that, at the very least, it should have been generally understood that this was in reference to the contents of the general author's fight-scenes in their written works. In those scenarios, it is usually either a fist fight or a sword fight. Sometimes other melee weapons are used.

Also, if you are saying you posted up a picture after 5 seconds of searching without understanding the message, then your message becomes completely moot and meaningless. You really should not be surprised if someone takes completely the wrong impression if you are that lazy with making your point.

 

[Snusmumriken]

I knew what I was searching for. I just didn't want to waste more than 5 seconds trying to find a better picture. I found one that showed the general layers. And stop trying to attack my character for no reason. Not a single time I have attacked you personally nor claimed you to be stupid or lazy or both.

 

[Tropic_Panda]

Alright. So, things have been stepped up a level when I provided a source with that video. Now that things are on that level, and you have just said stuff that directly contradicts the link I gave (they stated the poundage of the bow used in their test. It was MUCH heavier than 50-70 pounds.)

As such, if you are going to speak exactly in contradiction to a link I provided, I am going to need you to provide a link as well.

Source: https://www.quora.com/Were-there-bows-arrows-that-can-penetrate-plate-armour?top_ans=28721309

Second answer by Henry Foley.

 

[Jemini]

Source: https://www.quora.com/Were-there-bows-arrows-that-can-penetrate-plate-armour?top_ans=28721309

Second answer by Henry Foley.

Ok, that's a message board link. Anyone can say anything they want on a board like that, and therefore his word is no more valuable than your word.

I provided a link to a video that showed people doing a live test, and they stated all parameters used in their test. All individuals involved with that test were respected individuals within the HEMA community. Also, the war bow they used was easily double the 50-70 pounds cited by the source you provided. Therefore, it is not an effective argument against the source I provided at all.

If you are going to want to contradict my data, you are going to need a source of equal or better standing. A link to the methodology and data from the actual study Henry Foley is citing would be more than sufficient, but anything that is an actual source with authority behind it would do.

I knew what I was searching for. I just didn't want to waste more than 5 seconds trying to find a better picture. I found one that showed the general layers. And stop trying to attack my character for no reason. Not a single time I have attacked you personally nor claimed you to be stupid or lazy or both.

Ok, so, you come off asserting that I placed my "weapon reach" item in the wrong place. Then you use sub-standard evidence in your argument. Then, you LITERALLY state that you "just didn't want to waste more than 5 seconds." Sorry to break it to you, but you are lazy. And you just pre-emptively attacked my character as an under-handed tactic in order to try to avoid being called out on it.

Before this point, I have not directly attacked your character. I was just getting exasperated at your use of sub-standard arguments and use of anti-historical "facts" in order to assert the inaccuracy of my argument. I may have used language that talks down to you at times. This is a consequence of all the ignoring of facts and anti-historical arguments you kept making, all the while refusing to meet me half way and actually understand what I was trying to communicate. But this post is the first time I have directly attacked your character, and this is in response to your self-own that you just put in your own comment.

So, you have been lazy with your presentation of evidence, used a-historical facts to back your arguments, and shown no respect to the person you are attacking and making no attempt to meet half way and understand my points. Is it any surprise that I afforded you with the same lack of respect?

I would say at this point, the most charitable interpretation I can make on your character is that you are SERIOUSLY lacking in self-awareness. You have absolutely no idea what is being communicated by your messaging. This is the reason you are surprised and feeling defensive when people inevitably take offence to your behavior.

A lot of this could have been avoided if, in your first message, you could have put a message in parentheses (this graphic is in regards to modern warfare technology. However, I think this applies equally to medieval technology, which I understand is likely more in the direction the original post was meant for.)

The lack of even that message tells me 2 things, both of which you have already admitted to of your own volition in the posts since. 1. You did not take the appropriate level of effort to find a proper graphic to illustrate your point. 2. You did not even take the time to read the graphic you DID provide and realize what was actually being communicated by it. Once again, there is nothing but laziness in this.

If you want to mend bridges and be properly understood at this point, the correct tactic is to apologize for your poor communication, ADMIT YOU WERE BEING LAZY AND COMMUNICATING INEFFECTIVELY, and then re-state your point in a more easy to understand manner. In other words, start over with your point more clearly stated. Instead of this, you decided to go on the attack (you were playing the victim, but that is still a character attacking tactic. Make no mistake.)

I even extended the first olive branch of communicating to you why I was interpreting your messaging in a manner different from what you had expected. That was your opportunity to apologize, disengage, and then re-state your point more effectively. Instead, you decided to make the post you just did there about me attacking your character.

I think you should really re-think what your objectives are in this. Things are not looking good for you with the behavior you have shown up to this point. There is still room for salvage. We can regard that last statement as a simple hot-headed mistake on your part. However, I don't see much future for this discussion if you plan to keep being hostile.

 

[TheTrinary]

Factors that determine who is going to win the fight:

1. Who the author wants to win.

2. Nothing.

 

[Tropic_Panda]

Ok, that's a message board link. Anyone can say anything they want on a board like that, and therefore his word is no more valuable than your word.

I provided a link to a video that showed people doing a live test, and they stated all parameters used in their test. All individuals involved with that test were respected individuals within the HEMA community. Also, the war bow they used was easily double the 50-70 pounds cited by the source you provided. Therefore, it is not an effective argument against the source I provided at all.

If you are going to want to contradict my data, you are going to need a source of equal or better standing. A link to the methodology and data from the actual study Henry Foley is citing would be more than sufficient, but anything that is an actual source with authority behind it would do.

Your video also don't show the data required to make the precise conclusion.

For example, the velocity, the weight, the hardness, the draw, etc. What data you are talking about, in the video?

 

[Jemini]

Your video also don't show the data required to make the precise conclusion.

For example, the velocity, the weight, the hardness, the draw, etc. What data you are talking about, in the video?

Poundage of the bow, historical period and crafting techniques of the armor, historical data in regards to the types of armor used in the period, types of metal and forging techniques being used to craft the arrow heads. Also, the results.

Number of arrows shot, number of arrows destroyed, number of arrows that actually punctured the steel plate (zero BTW,) those numbers qualify as data. The stuff I noted above qualifies as methodology. Do you want me to provide an abstract? You are asking a lot for someone who has provided nothing but baseless assertions.

There is data there in the video, and it is more data than you have provided thus far. By the fact that you have chosen to go with what-aboutism instead of providing a source, I take this to mean that you do not have an actual good source to back your argument?

 

[Tropic_Panda]

Poundage of the bow, historical period and crafting techniques of the armor, historical data in regards to the types of armor used in the period, types of metal and forging techniques being used to craft the arrow heads. Also, the results.

Number of arrows shot, number of arrows destroyed, number of arrows that actually punctured the steel plate (zero BTW,) those numbers qualify as data. The stuff I noted above qualifies as methodology. Do you want me to provide an abstract? You are asking a lot for someone who has provided nothing but baseless assertions.

There is data there in the video, and it is more data than you have provided thus far. By the fact that you have chosen to go with what-aboutism instead of providing a source, I take this to mean that you do not have an actual good source to back your argument?

Fine, let's assume i don't have actual good source to back my argument. However, your source also not better than mine.

Stating about historical data, crafting techniques, type of metal, and forging techniques, then try to make replica for some testing, is not enough evident.

First, you need to know the penetrating power and hardness, between the two, then you can do some test. Why? Because, with same techniques, type of metal, or the same forging, two blacksmiths will have two different products, who will guarantee that the power of penetration and armor hardness bertween the replica and the original are same.

That's why, we need the most basic parameter, such as the weight, the velocity, the hardness, between the two, and not just historical data, but from proper methode (scientific or anything that have been approve by the expert in the field, not just historian and HEMA expert.) Then, you can doing the shooting test and draw the conclusion base on the result.

Beside, even if there are no relic to use as material for the evaluation about the hardness, the velocity, etc. At least, people in the video could evaluate the replica.

Well, you want to call data in the video as a proper data, yes you can, because you can believe whatever you want to believe. You can also believe the conclusion in the video is an absolute fact. However, in my opinion it's not enough to back your argument.

 

[Jemini]

Fine, let's assume i don't have actual good source to back my argument. However, your source also not better than mine.

Stating about historical data, crafting techniques, type of metal, and forging techniques, then try to make replica for some testing, is not enough evident.

First, you need to know the penetrating power and hardness, between the two, then you can do some test. Why? Because, with same techniques, type of metal, or the same forging, two blacksmiths will have two different products, who will guarantee that the power of penetration and armor hardness bertween the replica and the original are same.

That's why, we need the most basic parameter, such as the weight, the velocity, the hardness, between the two, and not just historical data, but from proper methode (scientific or anything that have been approve by the expert in the field, not just historian and HEMA expert.) Then, you can doing the shooting test and draw the conclusion base on the result.

Beside, even if there are no relic to use as material for the evaluation about the hardness, the velocity, etc. At least, people in the video could evaluate the replica.

Well, you want to call data in the video as a proper data, yes you can, because you can believe whatever you want to believe. You can also believe the conclusion in the video is an absolute fact. However, in my opinion it's not enough to back your argument.

Errrmmm... no. Historians are people who look into the actual historical data. They read the original sources. They have better ideas about what was really said. What you are giving me is assertions and repeating of myths.

They at least tested the assertions, and used some pretty solid methedology. You can squabble about that all you want. If you do not have a better or equal source, you have nothing.

If nothing else though, you are making positive point "arrows can pierce armor." I am making negative point "arrows cannot pierce armor." Therefore, you are the one who needs to provide positive proof.

I have even backed my assertion on top of this by providing a video of an arrow with modern high-grade steel arrow-heads fired from a 170lb war bow NOT puncturing steel armor. You have to be pretty pig-headed not to call that evidence.

Also, the guys in the video were very detailed with their methodology. This was a proper scientific experiment, by every right. They documented their methodology, their testing parameters, and made well defined controls. You do not have to be accredited to do scientific research. You just need a properly designed experiment. The experiment they did in the video is so well documented, and the parameters so well established, that it also fills 1 more requirement of properly designed research. It is replicatable. It is actually possible for an independent person to do all of the exact same things these guys did and get similar results. That's a real hall-mark of good solid research.

I would suggest that before you attack my source, you should first learn what scientific research actually looks like. Have you ever even read a proper research paper? I have read several.