« First glimpses of the Pied Piper | Main | [Linguistic] pied-piping »

Comments

MC

Sure these weren't used in some kind of ritual celebrating a certain kind of mushroom?

gail

Nobody would celebrate A

mojo

A, definitely. C, possibly.

AP depends on maximizing the force/unit area of impact. Thin and pointy.

Jake

Which one had the Teflon on it? Those would be the fabled "Sheriff Slayers" favored by Robin Hood and his men... (and of course outlawed in Nottingham since about 1266)

 Steven Fletcher

Not a simple answer here...

The bodkin point (A) may have been too soft to pierce "metallic plate armor", but it may have been intended for use against mail armor, which is made of inter linked rings of soft steel. No need to use expensive materials and techniques where a simpler alternative exists. This is especially true in the case of arrowheads, which were made in the hundreds of thousands and often lost and broken in battle.

I've seen pictures of replica steel armor pierced by bodkin points. As mojo stated, the physics of it seems to be in favor of the bodkin point as far as shape goes (though I would like to see a series cross sectional diagrams of the two before coming firmly to that conclusion). The particular bodkin point pictured above may have been of inferior quality. A shoddy rip-off or the work of a second-rate smith, and therefore unable to pierce plate armor.

Point B may have been made of superior materials, and may have been able to pierce plate steel, but if the bodkin point was made with the same skill and care as point B, I would venture that it would be able to pierce a thicker or stronger plate than point B.

Dates and locations are also important when considering such a question...

All that aside I would much rather be pierced with the bodkin point than with point B.

The comments to this entry are closed.