Ulfr-Reich wrote:Aqizithiuda wrote:I can't say that I've heard of crucible steel having that particular property. So far as I can remember, crucible steel's main advantage was the harder bands of semi-ceramic steel mixed in with the bands of softer steel.
I can also say, with much more certainty, that the French knights were not overly affected by the English arrows because the bodkin points were typically softer, lower quality steel without a temper and the combination of plate, mail and padded armour that the French wore at that point in time was more than sufficient to stop the vast majority of arrows. The mud probably killed more men than the arrows, and the archers almost certainly killed more men in close quarter combat than with their bows.
Really now, well, last time I went to an SCA gathering (middle-kingdom or sommat), someone had a longbow and a chestplate made to historical spec. It worked just fine n' dandy, plus, said vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KCE40J93m5c offers a neat example of the point. Yer' right on the range though in regard to the arrows though; I'd like to state that damascus is a fickle bitch, but what it could do to armored targets was fucking crazy, all those layers of mixed and forge welded metals did some particularly heavy damage on the poor schmuck in the suit, it'd probably work just like this, but scaled up heavily due to the change in gear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UpOFS09rLIY#t=149; just with a heavy thrust due to the bayonet bit. A blending of concepts like that could benefit Arch's troops somewhat.
This is obviously going to be a discussion that I'll need sources from, so I'll refrain from it until I get home, but I do have one pretty vital question: are you talking about Damascus steel or "Damascus" steel. One's a hard to reproduce crucible steel that most likely had some critical cooling elements, while the other is just ordinary pattern welded steel.