Print

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

[Loud Whispers]

2. Bows also were poor against heavy armor, even longbows. If you examine the oft-quoted battles where longbows were used heavily to good effect, knights were typically defeated by a number of factors, most prominently charging over bad cavalry terrain and having their lighter-armored horses shot at leisure from the flanks. Even so, the knights were often still described as being actually killed by men-at-arms in melee. Conclusion: The cavalry charge was defeated by longbows, terrain and stakes, the armour not so much. ("Idiot commanders" also comes to mind, but knights could be notably difficult to command reliably as it were.)

Battles that simply involved knights and infantry with longbows but without extensive terrain choice and preparation (muddy fields, stakes, ditches) on the part of the defenders tellingly resulted in massacre on the longbows end and virtually no losses by the knights. (See battle of Patay for instance, 1500 cavalry vs 5000 infantry mostly composed of longbowmen. Infantry losses 2500, cavalry losses 100.) You just don't hear about those battles quite so much in english-speaking culture for some reason. Hmm!

Erm... A french army consisting of sooooo many knights, far outnumbering the English knights (and the peasants they brought along)... And they killed them all with longbows and knives.
Herp derp derp herp derp.

[Vester]

2. Bows also were poor against heavy armor, even longbows. If you examine the oft-quoted battles where longbows were used heavily to good effect, knights were typically defeated by a number of factors, most prominently charging over bad cavalry terrain and having their lighter-armored horses shot at leisure from the flanks. Even so, the knights were often still described as being actually killed by men-at-arms in melee. Conclusion: The cavalry charge was defeated by longbows, terrain and stakes, the armour not so much. ("Idiot commanders" also comes to mind, but knights could be notably difficult to command reliably as it were.)

Battles that simply involved knights and infantry with longbows but without extensive terrain choice and preparation (muddy fields, stakes, ditches) on the part of the defenders tellingly resulted in massacre on the longbows end and virtually no losses by the knights. (See battle of Patay for instance, 1500 cavalry vs 5000 infantry mostly composed of longbowmen. Infantry losses 2500, cavalry losses 100.) You just don't hear about those battles quite so much in english-speaking culture for some reason. Hmm!

Erm... A french army consisting of sooooo many knights, far outnumbering the English knights (and the peasants they brought along)... And they killed them all with longbows and knives.
Herp derp derp herp derp.

No, they killed them with swords, the mauls they used to hammer stakes into the ground, spears, warhammers, swords, axes, knives, rocks, mud, and longbows (which were only indirectly responsible for that horrid massacre). Plus the french knights at Agincourt behaved exactly how you'd expect impetuous cavalrymen to. The defeat at Agincourt was a hideous tactical error on a battlefield that didn't favor French cavalry tactics at all.

The french knights and men-at-arms attacked the English lines on foot after they got bogged down, slogged through the mud in heavy armor, and by the time they got there were so tired out from longbow impacts and footslogging that a child with a big stick could have taken them down.

[Necro910]

2. Bows also were poor against heavy armor, even longbows. If you examine the oft-quoted battles where longbows were used heavily to good effect, knights were typically defeated by a number of factors, most prominently charging over bad cavalry terrain and having their lighter-armored horses shot at leisure from the flanks. Even so, the knights were often still described as being actually killed by men-at-arms in melee. Conclusion: The cavalry charge was defeated by longbows, terrain and stakes, the armour not so much. ("Idiot commanders" also comes to mind, but knights could be notably difficult to command reliably as it were.)

Battles that simply involved knights and infantry with longbows but without extensive terrain choice and preparation (muddy fields, stakes, ditches) on the part of the defenders tellingly resulted in massacre on the longbows end and virtually no losses by the knights. (See battle of Patay for instance, 1500 cavalry vs 5000 infantry mostly composed of longbowmen. Infantry losses 2500, cavalry losses 100.) You just don't hear about those battles quite so much in english-speaking culture for some reason. Hmm!

Erm... A french army consisting of sooooo many knights, far outnumbering the English knights (and the peasants they brought along)... And they killed them all with longbows and knives.
Herp derp derp herp derp.

No, they killed them with swords, the mauls they used to hammer stakes into the ground, spears, warhammers, swords, axes, knives, rocks, mud, and longbows (which were only indirectly responsible for that horrid massacre). Plus the french knights at Agincourt behaved exactly how you'd expect impetuous cavalrymen to. The defeat at Agincourt was a hideous tactical error on a battlefield that didn't favor French cavalry tactics at all.

The french knights and men-at-arms attacked the English lines on foot after they got bogged down, slogged through the mud in heavy armor, and by the time they got there were so tired out from longbow impacts and footslogging that a child with a big stick could have taken them down.

And so Dwarf Fortress adventure mode was born!

[Dwarf_Fever]

I posted a link to some research a guy did. Bodkins do penetrate much better than broadheads, but against plate only the needle bodkin does any good.

I think I've seen that, and if you look through the tests he ran, he also stated that a thin 10 layer padded jack (commonly worn along with other armor as a covering surcoat or with padding layers) would alone completely stop bodkins, to the point that he didn't even bother testing against the thicker padded jack he had.

Sources indicate that padded jacks were commonly 25-30 layers.

To quote a period military order for production of these as standard soldier armor, "for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

[Loud Whispers]

TA DAH!!!

[Vester]

I posted a link to some research a guy did. Bodkins do penetrate much better than broadheads, but against plate only the needle bodkin does any good.

I think I've seen that, and if you look through the tests he ran, he also stated that a thin 10 layer padded jack (commonly worn along with other armor as a covering surcoat or with padding layers) would alone completely stop bodkins, to the point that he didn't even bother testing against the thicker padded jack he had.

Sources indicate that padded jacks were commonly 25-30 layers.

To quote a period military order for production of these as standard soldier armor, "for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

So what we're saying here is "armor works well, in general"?

[Loud Whispers]

I posted a link to some research a guy did. Bodkins do penetrate much better than broadheads, but against plate only the needle bodkin does any good.

I think I've seen that, and if you look through the tests he ran, he also stated that a thin 10 layer padded jack (commonly worn along with other armor as a covering surcoat or with padding layers) would alone completely stop bodkins, to the point that he didn't even bother testing against the thicker padded jack he had.

Sources indicate that padded jacks were commonly 25-30 layers.

To quote a period military order for production of these as standard soldier armor, "for never have been seen half a dozen men killed by stabs or arrow wounds in such Jacks, particularly if they be troops accustomed to fighting."

So what we're saying here is "armor works well, in general"?

We're saying this got off topic, very quickly.

[Vester]

We always get off topic.

[Dwarf_Fever]

Right, well we better get back to talking about how hammerlords are some kind of sick joke.

[Loud Whispers]

Right, well we better get back to talking about how hammerlords are some kind of sick joke.

Hey guys, are hammerlords some king of sick joke?

Huh... Dejavu...


Ground Dog day.

[dr_random]

...
Another thing to remember is that there is no let-off on a longbow, unlike most modern sports bows. The farther you pull it, the more resistance there is. A typical compound bow (the ones with training wheels) has 60-80% let-off. So if you're shooting a 70 pound bow, you only have to hold 14-25 pounds at full draw when you're aiming. It's a very big difference if you don't shoot instinctive. Anyone can hold 14 pounds as long as they need to. I've seem hunters at practice ranges draw the arrow and stand there aiming for 30 seconds (yeah, like a deer is going to stay in one place and let you do that). So there's a big difference in strength needed between modern bows and longbows. Shooting instinctive helps a lot, since I usually would release very shortly after reaching full draw. But learning to shoot that way with any kind of accuracy takes a lot longer than a few weeks.

In England, there were laws requiring all able-bodied men to practice in the longbow on a weekly basis. Edward IV passed laws forbidding an early form of cricket because people were playing it instead of doing their archery practice. Henry VIII imposed a law in 1515 requiring almost all of his subjects  to shoot longbows, have bows continually in their houses, and "that fathers and governours of chyldren teache them to shote, and that bowes and arrowes be bought for chyldren under XVII and above VII yere, by him that has such a chylde in his house". So it wasn't some yeoman class with special status, it was every man "excepte Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer" (http://www.scortonarrow.com/features/Archery_its%20the%20law.htm) At least in England.

You're right, pulling the sports bow becomes quite convenient if you get beyond maximum pull. I suppose bow without that let-off are a lot more tiring.
I didn't know the crown wanted any able-bodied to shoot with bows. There is always a certain risk for your neck if you let many people run around with weapons.

[Vester]

...
Another thing to remember is that there is no let-off on a longbow, unlike most modern sports bows. The farther you pull it, the more resistance there is. A typical compound bow (the ones with training wheels) has 60-80% let-off. So if you're shooting a 70 pound bow, you only have to hold 14-25 pounds at full draw when you're aiming. It's a very big difference if you don't shoot instinctive. Anyone can hold 14 pounds as long as they need to. I've seem hunters at practice ranges draw the arrow and stand there aiming for 30 seconds (yeah, like a deer is going to stay in one place and let you do that). So there's a big difference in strength needed between modern bows and longbows. Shooting instinctive helps a lot, since I usually would release very shortly after reaching full draw. But learning to shoot that way with any kind of accuracy takes a lot longer than a few weeks.

In England, there were laws requiring all able-bodied men to practice in the longbow on a weekly basis. Edward IV passed laws forbidding an early form of cricket because people were playing it instead of doing their archery practice. Henry VIII imposed a law in 1515 requiring almost all of his subjects  to shoot longbows, have bows continually in their houses, and "that fathers and governours of chyldren teache them to shote, and that bowes and arrowes be bought for chyldren under XVII and above VII yere, by him that has such a chylde in his house". So it wasn't some yeoman class with special status, it was every man "excepte Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer" (http://www.scortonarrow.com/features/Archery_its%20the%20law.htm) At least in England.

You're right, pulling the sports bow becomes quite convenient if you get beyond maximum pull. I suppose bow without that let-off are a lot more tiring.
I didn't know the crown wanted any able-bodied to shoot with bows. There is always a certain risk for your neck if you let many people run around with weapons.

Attacking your king is like spitting in the face of God, who put that king there.

Most of these people believed that serving the crown, the noble they fought for, or the man who paid them was a pretty sweet deal anyway.

[FrisianDude]

Not sure about that, Vester, but they did certainly know that shooting the king would be a one-way trip to Deathsville, Lincolnshire. And chances were the king would survive the shot anyway.

[Vester]

Not sure about that, Vester, but they did certainly know that shooting the king would be a one-way trip to Deathsville, Lincolnshire. And chances were the king would survive the shot anyway.

But shooting the king is unthinkable. He might be a right bastard, but he's an ENGLISH bastard.

The French king, now, that's a different story.

[AWdeV]

Right, well we better get back to talking about how hammerlords are some kind of sick joke.

Hell no, this is a much better topic.

And anyway +1 to vester for not being pants-on-head retarded about the one weapon that is nearly as much overhyped as the bleedin' Katana.