Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[uttaku]

Crossbow bolts and arrows have a fairly small contact area so they have great armour penetration, which is also accurate - most bows and crossbows are capable of putting a projectile through plate or chain.

People argue this notion back and forth, but chivalry was killed by gunpowder, not crossbows.  A suit of steel plate armor in the real world represents an immense amount of labor and wealth; you wouldn't have had units outfitted in stuff that takes years to pull out of the ground and manufacture if it can be defeated by a weapon that costs a tiny fraction of its resources and labor, hence personal armor stopped showing up on the battlefield entirely once guns became common.  Modern crossbows made of modern materials may be a different story of course.

No chivalry was killed by economics! early firearms were far worse than late crossbows in terms of accuracy, range, fire speed. Good quality armour would be proofed against firearms. Also its a common misconception that firearms were cheap to beign with they were very expensive espically the gunpowder.

[decius]

Additonally, the more heavily armored the knight, the more effective most simple fortifications were. A waist high earthen berm, sloped at 70-80 degrees and a few feet wide, is not incredibly hard to build. Put a line of crossbowmen or archers behind it, along with a few pikemen, and the line all but requires seige weaponry to break.

Does using multiple layers of fortifications block more projectiles? As in, put animals behind rows of forticications, and let the attackers use all their ammo to no effect. The trick would be making the attackers path to the animal without letting the animal path to the meeting hall.

[Hyndis]

Crossbow bolts and arrows have a fairly small contact area so they have great armour penetration, which is also accurate - most bows and crossbows are capable of putting a projectile through plate or chain.

People argue this notion back and forth, but chivalry was killed by gunpowder, not crossbows.  A suit of steel plate armor in the real world represents an immense amount of labor and wealth; you wouldn't have had units outfitted in stuff that takes years to pull out of the ground and manufacture if it can be defeated by a weapon that costs a tiny fraction of its resources and labor, hence personal armor stopped showing up on the battlefield entirely once guns became common.  Modern crossbows made of modern materials may be a different story of course.

No chivalry was killed by economics! early firearms were far worse than late crossbows in terms of accuracy, range, fire speed. Good quality armour would be proofed against firearms. Also its a common misconception that firearms were cheap to beign with they were very expensive espically the gunpowder.

Arguably up until breach loaders, crossbows were more accurate, easier to use, and hit about as hard as a musket. If you had brought a bunch of crossbows or even worse, English longbowmen to Gettysburg they would have mopped up the place.

Once breach loaders were invented it all changed.

However, again, economics.

It took an English longbowman about a decade of training to be really good and able to slaughter armored soldiers at places like Agincourt. Crossbow could take a couple of months.

Muskets? Maybe a few days of training, tops. Build lots of guns, recruit lots of soldiers, point guns in the general vicinity of the enemy, and have them fire all at once. Hope for the best. Since they couldn't hit anything they'll need to marsh in formation to point blank range before they fire.

[decius]

While not perfectly effective vs crossbows, initial testing indicates that adamantine dresses are pretty effective against anything except hammers. Combined with leather and silk armor and clothing, crossbow attacks had minimal effectiveness. Versus anything else, the attacker would pass out from exhaustion prior to causing any injury.

Leaving off the boots, gauntlets, and helms allows hits to the feet, hands, and head (respectively) unimpeded. I did not test enough to compare high/low boots, or adamantine gloves/socks.

So, put your military in dresses. Robes seem to work just as well.

[Zrk2]

OOOooooooooooohhhhhh, Armok I'm getting sucked into this cess pit of pointless debate. Longbowmen would not have cleaned up Gettysburg. In the town itself there was no room to fire off volleys, it was closer to Stalingrad than to Agincourt. Secondly, knights were defeated because guns are more phallic than swords. End of debate.

[decius]

Longbowmen at Gettysburg would have been torn to shreds by canister shells. Same as the the conscripts that were there.

Plate mail knights, on the other hand, would have been torn to shreds by canister shells.

Infantry in modern battle armor, on the third hand... would have been torn to shreds by canister shells.

Armored combat vehicles would have cleaned up at Gettysburg. Provided they had enough fuel.

And don't try to end a debate with an obvously false claim. Daggers are more phallic than pistols, and swords are more phallic than rifles. Just because some rifles are more phallic than some knives...

Guns beat out bows because they are easier to make and maintain. If you call a bow a glorified stick, I can call a gun a buch of standarized (if not readily interchangable) parts. I can change out a flint far faster than you can can straighten out a warped bow.

[tolkafox]

History time! Let us recall the 100 year war of the french.

Most notable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_%281356%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Anyone who bothered to research why the middle finger is derogatory would know that longbows at a distance can easily beat armored knights, not only through experienced longbowmen who could pierce steel but through the amateurs who's sole killing device was pure blunt trauma alas arrow.

In DF, my troops get a lot of bruises. These bruises can extend as far as the internal organs, and with enough blunt force can even lead to bleeding and broken bones. A large wooden arrow fired from a ballista might not pierce an armored foe, but I'm sure the blunt trauma would still be enough to hurt him.

[uttaku]

History time! Let us recall the 100 year war of the french.

Most notable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poitiers_%281356%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

Anyone who bothered to research why the middle finger is derogatory would know that longbows at a distance can easily beat armored knights, not only through experienced longbowmen who could pierce steel but through the amateurs who's sole killing device was pure blunt trauma alas arrow.

In DF, my troops get a lot of bruises. These bruises can extend as far as the internal organs, and with enough blunt force can even lead to bleeding and broken bones. A large wooden arrow fired from a ballista might not pierce an armored foe, but I'm sure the blunt trauma would still be enough to hurt him.

Actual history time!
The middle finger insult is an urban myth and is the forks not the middle finger anyway, at agincourt the archers were so effective because the ground was muddy so the knights couldn't charge propery, the french crossbowmen were killed before hand and the archers mainly killed the horses rather than thee knights, its been tested and at the time for a longbow to pierece the breastplate of a knight it would have had to have been a 90 degree hit from only about 30m away

[Rowanas]

I believe that the V sign comes originally from an Italian rude gesture, indicating cunnilingus.

[FleshForge]

One should read articles to see if they actually mean what one thinks they mean.  All three of those examples (obligatory doubt of Wikipedia notwithstanding) actually kind of say that yes, armored cavalry does trump archers.

The Crécy article:

Knights' armour had not yet evolved to the stage where longbows could not penetrate, and the knights' horses were barely protected at all. The storm of arrows killed or disabled the knights' mounts, and left the knights floundering in the mud on foot beneath an unavoidable hail of arrows.

The Poitiers article:

Prominent chronicler Jean Froissart writes that the French armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skidded off the armor or shattered on impact. English history of the battle disputes this, as some claim that the narrow bodkin point arrows they used have been proven capable of penetrating most plate armour of that time period. While tests have been done to support this with fixed pieces of flat metal, armour was curved, so the point is debatable. Given the following actions of the archers, it seems likely Froissart was correct. The armour on the horses was weaker on the sides and back, so the archers moved to the sides of the cavalry and shot the horses in the flanks.

The Agincourt article:

... it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbowmen (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the palings that protected the archers.

(the takeaway is that fortifications were the key, which is pretty obvious to us DF players)

[tolkafox]

One should read articles to see if they actually mean what one thinks they mean.  All three of those examples (obligatory doubt of Wikipedia notwithstanding) actually kind of say that yes, armored cavalry does trump archers.

The Crécy article:

Knights' armour had not yet evolved to the stage where longbows could not penetrate, and the knights' horses were barely protected at all. The storm of arrows killed or disabled the knights' mounts, and left the knights floundering in the mud on foot beneath an unavoidable hail of arrows.

The Poitiers article:

Prominent chronicler Jean Froissart writes that the French armour was invulnerable to the English arrows, that the arrowheads either skidded off the armor or shattered on impact. English history of the battle disputes this, as some claim that the narrow bodkin point arrows they used have been proven capable of penetrating most plate armour of that time period. While tests have been done to support this with fixed pieces of flat metal, armour was curved, so the point is debatable. Given the following actions of the archers, it seems likely Froissart was correct. The armour on the horses was weaker on the sides and back, so the archers moved to the sides of the cavalry and shot the horses in the flanks.

The Agincourt article:

... it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbowmen (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the palings that protected the archers.

(the takeaway is that fortifications were the key, which is pretty obvious to us DF players)

No sir, I do not actually read the articles on wikipedia. I would cite you the academic book or information from it, but I'm afraid I would have to ask the company for permission first unless I want to break some laws. Quite frankly I can't be bothered to do that

[FleshForge]

 

[Zrk2]

There are these great things called references. There are many different styles of references, the mosty popular being APA and MLA if they are acceptable  for a university english course I'm sure mentioning the title of the book will suffice in an internet forum. Gawd. ...