Oh yeah, this is true. I'm thinking about the late period i guess, during which crossbows made their apperance and the armored knight was on his way out. Armor that yes, while mobile, became so heavy that one could not get up again if one fell. The NEAR-turtle apparition of warfare.
Crossbows and longbows mean death to an armored target.
My theory has always been in the paper-rock-scissoring effect of civ, that Archers should be city-holders and anti-melee, Melee should be city takers and generally stronger (more of em), and Cavalry should be anti-archers and fast.
In game terms this is done fairly well, especially with Crossbowman.
I am not a historian, but I am not aware of any time period where people wore armour that was so heavy they could not rise. Do you have any more information (links, books, etc.) on this? The armour that we use for ground combat (we use lighter armour for mounted) is about the heaviest that anyone used historicaly that I am aware of. I am very interested in learning more if you have the information available, or can tell me where to get it.
I am just not going to get into the debate about longbows vs. crossbows (*coughlongbowsareclearlyasuperiorweaponcough*)
P.s. Dont laugh off range. Range creates a longer approach, which means more dead. Longbows are masters of non-seige ranged warfare of their time. Crossbows were more accurate and powerful...but shorter in range. Longbows could be fired repeatedly, AT range, and decimate a force before it closed with the crossbows...which would then finish the job.
P.s. Dont laugh off range. Range creates a longer approach, which means more dead. Longbows are masters of non-seige ranged warfare of their time. Crossbows were more accurate and powerful...but shorter in range. Longbows could be fired repeatedly, AT range, and decimate a force before it closed with the crossbows...which would then finish the job.
I dont have any information sorry. But i was thinking about mounted armor units. I remember reading (a LONG time ago) a book that talked about medieval arms and armor, and how in the late stages, right about the time armor was becoming obsolete (or during, not sure) Armed Knights would be hoiseted onto their warhorses, and if they fell off, they were out of the fight. I'm sorry ive no proof, im just letting my very patchy memory do its dasterly deeds. Done, dirt cheap.
-Qes
well, in the undisputed categories we have range and rate of fire, in the disputed categories we have accuracy and power.
The single biggest advantage to a crossbow, and the reason that they took over, is that it takes a few weeks to turn someone into an effective fighter with a crossbow, it essentially takes a lifetime to become effective with a long bow. You also have to be _healthy_ to make effective use of a longbow, it requires both strength and stamina in high quantities to fire a longbow repeatedly in a battle, a crossbow requires considerably less of both. Longbows have a material advantage, you need wood (of the right sort), gut (string) and quite a few hours to make a longbow. Crossbows require machined (ok, smithed) parts, but I believe that it takes less time to actually make one.
On an individual basis an expert longbowman can shoot farther, hit harder, more rapidly and with better accuracy.
On a group basis you can turn a hundred peasants into crossbowmen in a few weeks, it is not possible to turn the same group into longbowmen at all.
In short both have their advantages, but the longbow is a better weapon
Lets take a look at these claims individually,
Spoiler:
For the sake of argument lets call the average longbow 75 lbs pull and the average crossbow 150 lbs pull, please note that these figures are wrong for any given time period, highest pull longbows were around 100-120, highest pull crossbows depend on how big one can get and still call it a crossbow. You might say "See, crossbow, twice as powerful." Well hold on there, sparky. A crossbow is exerting this pull over a shorter distance (draw length) than a long bow. Less than half the distance normally. A bolt is also lighter and shorter than an arrow, so there is less mass in the projectile as well.
It's kind of like the difference between a rifle and a pistol, but only as an analogy.
force=mass x acceleration (f=ma)
acceleration in a longbow is greater (less pull but over a longer period)
mass is greater in a longbow
longbow has more force
Accuracy is based on a number of things, lets make things easy and assume that our crossbowman and longbowman are equally skilled. The next thing we have to look at is air resistance. I really do not wish to get into the math on it, but trust me. Long and skinny moves better through the air than short and wide. Fletching will also make a difference here but I am going to ignore it (feather is better than leather). The flight of an arrow is more aerodynamically stable than the flight of a bolt. So a longbow is more accurate at a distance than a crossbow, although a crossbow is more accurate in short ranges (crossbows have a flatter trajectory)
Rate of fire... yeah. Anyone really want to argue that you can fire 10 shots from a bow faster than 10 shots from a crossbow?
@Puck
I dont have any information sorry. But i was thinking about mounted armor units. I remember reading (a LONG time ago) a book that talked about medieval arms and armor, and how in the late stages, right about the time armor was becoming obsolete (or during, not sure) Armed Knights would be hoiseted onto their warhorses, and if they fell off, they were out of the fight. I'm sorry ive no proof, im just letting my very patchy memory do its dasterly deeds. Done, dirt cheap.
-Qes
I remember hearing this as well, but I really rather doubt it. It's just dumb to wear armor so heavy that it's a death sentance if your horse gets killed or you get dismounted. In the absence of facts lets just leave it lie.
well, in the undisputed categories we have range and rate of fire, in the disputed categories we have accuracy and power.
The single biggest advantage to a crossbow, and the reason that they took over, is that it takes a few weeks to turn someone into an effective fighter with a crossbow, it essentially takes a lifetime to become effective with a long bow. You also have to be _healthy_ to make effective use of a longbow, it requires both strength and stamina in high quantities to fire a longbow repeatedly in a battle, a crossbow requires considerably less of both. Longbows have a material advantage, you need wood (of the right sort), gut (string) and quite a few hours to make a longbow. Crossbows require machined (ok, smithed) parts, but I believe that it takes less time to actually make one.
On an individual basis an expert longbowman can shoot farther, hit harder, more rapidly and with better accuracy.
On a group basis you can turn a hundred peasants into crossbowmen in a few weeks, it is not possible to turn the same group into longbowmen at all.
In short both have their advantages, but the longbow is a better weapon
Lets take a look at these claims individually,
Spoiler:
For the sake of argument lets call the average longbow 75 lbs pull and the average crossbow 150 lbs pull, please note that these figures are wrong for any given time period, highest pull longbows were around 100-120, highest pull crossbows depend on how big one can get and still call it a crossbow. You might say "See, crossbow, twice as powerful." Well hold on there, sparky. A crossbow is exerting this pull over a shorter distance (draw length) than a long bow. Less than half the distance normally. A bolt is also lighter and shorter than an arrow, so there is less mass in the projectile as well.
It's kind of like the difference between a rifle and a pistol, but only as an analogy.
force=mass x acceleration (f=ma)
acceleration in a longbow is greater (less pull but over a longer period)
mass is greater in a longbow
longbow has more force
Accuracy is based on a number of things, lets make things easy and assume that our crossbowman and longbowman are equally skilled. The next thing we have to look at is air resistance. I really do not wish to get into the math on it, but trust me. Long and skinny moves better through the air than short and wide. Fletching will also make a difference here but I am going to ignore it (feather is better than leather). The flight of an arrow is more aerodynamically stable than the flight of a bolt. So a longbow is more accurate at a distance than a crossbow, although a crossbow is more accurate in short ranges (crossbows have a flatter trajectory)
Rate of fire... yeah. Anyone really want to argue that you can fire 10 shots from a bow faster than 10 shots from a crossbow?
Very well said. And I too thought it was silly that knights wore armor that made them nigh immoble, but when your up against crossbows, longbows and early cannon/guns as we've just discussed, its easy to see why they at least wanted the illusion of protection.
-Qes
Barding (also spelled bard or barb) is armor for horses. During the late Middle Ages as armor protection for knights became more effective, their mounts became targets. This was an effective tactic for the English at the Battle of Crecy in the fourteenth century where archers shot horses and heavy infantry killed the French knights after they dismounted. Barding developed as a response to such events.
quote from wiki pedia-
i suppose it's possible to fall off a horse, but more likely is that your horse gets killed and you're left only with weapons that are meant for being used from horseback.
only stupid people use a suit of armour they can't move in....
Heh, it is more than possibly to fall off of a horse, especially swinging a hammer or sword around. I can tell you that from personal experience. Get a little off balance wearing a breastplate and you can tip right over.
Heh, it is more than possibly to fall off of a horse, especially swinging a hammer or sword around. I can tell you that from personal experience. Get a little off balance wearing a breastplate and you can tip right over.
Thats why you should wield nerf-weaponry. NOthing humiliates your opponents like getting hit with nerf darts or bonked on the head by a nerf bat. And they're far cheaper than your metal weapon.
You work at the Ren. Fest. Puck? Gonna have me a weddding at one of those.
-Qes
Thats why you should wield nerf-weaponry. NOthing humiliates your opponents like getting hit with nerf darts or bonked on the head by a nerf bat. And they're far cheaper than your metal weapon.
-Qes
I've worked at serveral, and I've even "married" people at one (I was playing Merlin at the time and the couple requested it.) It can be a pretty nice ceremony, and most Ren faires seem to have a minister on staff. Where were you thinking about getting married?
You've clearly never been shot by nerf weaponry. It's embarrasing, the death of your pride ensues. And if you ..<cough> modifiy the weapons, they can even hurt a little.
Still if Puck was charging on his horse, and i got a nerf dart stuck to his armor. It'd deflate his glory.
-Qes
On the subject of weapons and flavour, gladius, falchions, scimitars, sabres and cutlass (specifically the last one in the hands of Lanun) would be quite nice.
And part of me says 'boiling oil' may count to some extent as a weapon.
I've worked at serveral, and I've even "married" people at one (I was playing Merlin at the time and the couple requested it.) It can be a pretty nice ceremony, and most Ren faires seem to have a minister on staff. Where were you thinking about getting married?
Not for a few years yet, but I live in Minnesota, biggest Ren. Fest. of all, or so I am told. Shakopee has them every august-september. My Finacee loves them, and were currently looking at costumes. But whilst she is out of country, im taking the lazy (i dont wanna work on it at all) approach.
I have a pastor in mind, and hopefully he'd be willing to Ren. Fest. it. The general rule of the wedding thus far, is that if your IN the wedding, you must be in costume, if your simply attending, you can be a Normie.
-Qes
You've clearly never been shot by nerf weaponry. It's embarrasing, the death of your pride ensues. And if you ..<cough> modifiy the weapons, they can even hurt a little.
Still if Puck was charging on his horse, and i got a nerf dart stuck to his armor. It'd deflate his glory.
-Qes
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
