Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 19:29:26 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with Taran here...history suggests that the longbowman ruled the field for a time- which led to the development of thicker plate to counter those lethal arrows that rained with such ferocity, especially during the Hundred Years' War where it seems they had gained the most prominence as battlefield fighters go.
Granted, I'm not an archer (or a real knight in any way except in my head of course) but I have a decent understanding of physics and how opposing forces meet and disperse. A bodkin head arrow was simply an arrow with a very narrow, very sharp point that was designed specifically to punch through armor, unlike the broadhead arrow which was very good for unarmored targets. I would think a bodkin point, shot from a 150# bow would very likely pierce plate mail, whether it is at 20 paces or 50. Take into account the way the longbow was shot- not straight at a target but using a parabolic arc by firing upwards for the arrow to hit its apex and allow gravity to do the rest.
I see it as an art form...the few texts available suggest that these archers, the ones that lived, had to be very good at what they did. Of course the arguments abound whether or not it was manly, or courageous to be a 'from-a-distance' killer, but look at the popularity of snipers now- some could consider it a cowardly way to go about killing someone, but the ability required to carry out such a mission is one reason why everyone else is NOT a sniper.
I think the same about the longbowmen of yore. Also, in drawing such bows, they were trained from childhood much like a squire was, strictly in bowyership and shooting. The remains of some archers found suggested that they were heavily muscled in the shoulders and back with spurs in certain areas that maintained contact with the bow. I'm thinking, off the top, wrists and fingers...that much force exerted against one's effort has to have an effect on the soft tissues at some point.
My $0.02, ymmv.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 21:02:41 GMT
Many archers gradually acquired back problems due to the strain on the spine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 22:21:11 GMT
"Bowmanship" Ebon. A bowyer is someone who makes bows.
And the longbow fell out of popularity, not because it ceased to be an effective weapon, but because of the level of training it required. It takes 3 generations, according to Medieval English SOP, to train a bowman. It takes a matter of weeks to train a crossbowman or a musketeer or rifleman. Therein lies the problem with the bow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 23:05:41 GMT
Tell you what, Luka, you put on some of that plate, and I'll grab my measly 100# bow, and we'll start with you at 20 yards (it's only 100#, after all). And we'll see at what range I kill you. French and English lines Didn't meet when the longbows were allowed to fire on the knights. Such as at Agincourt. That one, single battle should be enough to dispell a lot of the BS in that series of arguments. The bow, like any number of other weapons, was not Allowed to be used directly against the knights because it was "improper." "Unchivalrous." Like the flanged mace, restrictions on the use of the Longbow and later, the crossbow, were put into place to protect the lives of the knights, the nobles. At least the flanged mace was almost solely used by other knights. But the longbow and the crossbow were used by commoners. And Commoners killing KNIGHTS?! Well, we can't have that. I really don't want to offend you, but commoners not being allowed to kill knights in battle is not supported by anything I have ever read and sounds funny to me. There are so many battles were commoners killed knights in great numbers... Courtrai, Stirling, Bannockburn, Morgarten, Sempach, Nancy, Granson, Hussite wars... At Agincourt, archers loosed many volleys before the lines closed. You think volleys could be fired so precisely so that they wouldn't hit knights, just charging horses? No, knights survived volleys thanks to their armor. Horses got killed thanks to the lack of armor. Most of the weapons used by commoners were excellent for killing knights: pikes, bills, halberds, flails, axes... For the ability of longbow to pierce armor, I won't argue with you because I have zero first hand experience about it. I just wrote what people far more educated and experienced than me wrote and proved. Here is one interesting test that shows how even a good mail with padding is effective against the bow and most other weapons. Test is not perfect, but certainly useful. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2009 23:21:19 GMT
I'm going to have to agree with Taran here...history suggests that the longbowman ruled the field for a time- which led to the development of thicker plate to counter those lethal arrows that rained with such ferocity, especially during the Hundred Years' War where it seems they had gained the most prominence as battlefield fighters go. Granted, I'm not an archer (or a real knight in any way except in my head of course) but I have a decent understanding of physics and how opposing forces meet and disperse. A bodkin head arrow was simply an arrow with a very narrow, very sharp point that was designed specifically to punch through armor, unlike the broadhead arrow which was very good for unarmored targets. I would think a bodkin point, shot from a 150# bow would very likely pierce plate mail, whether it is at 20 paces or 50. Take into account the way the longbow was shot- not straight at a target but using a parabolic arc by firing upwards for the arrow to hit its apex and allow gravity to do the rest. I see it as an art form...the few texts available suggest that these archers, the ones that lived, had to be very good at what they did. Of course the arguments abound whether or not it was manly, or courageous to be a 'from-a-distance' killer, but look at the popularity of snipers now- some could consider it a cowardly way to go about killing someone, but the ability required to carry out such a mission is one reason why everyone else is NOT a sniper. I think the same about the longbowmen of yore. Also, in drawing such bows, they were trained from childhood much like a squire was, strictly in bowyership and shooting. The remains of some archers found suggested that they were heavily muscled in the shoulders and back with spurs in certain areas that maintained contact with the bow. I'm thinking, off the top, wrists and fingers...that much force exerted against one's effort has to have an effect on the soft tissues at some point. My $0.02, ymmv. I definitely agree that longbow ruled the battlefield. But it didn't kill fully armored knights. It killed horses, common soldiers with little or no armor, it distracted knights, disrupt charges, forced enemy to close lines quickly... All that is very useful. Bow doesn't have to be knight-killer to be effective strategic weapon. Armor got thicker because of firearms in the late 15th and 16th century, not longbow. In Wars of Roses you often had a case of two english army, both with archers, fighting one another. The battle usually goes this way: Archer units "duel" with enemy archers, it lasts quite some time, casualties are relatively low as neither side wants to get to near, and casualties are only among unarmored troops. When it lasts for a long time, one army losses its patience and charge. Battles are concluded with hand to hand combat although great quantities of archers are present. In crusades, Muslim powerful recurved bows also couldn't kill much knights although they had only mail, not plate. At Arsuf, crusader army waited for a very long time under the shower of Muslim arrows with very low casualties. When Hospitallers finally charged, it was because they were loosing too many horses and were afraid if they waited more they couldn't launch a charge at all. Again no knight casualties. Joinville's chronicle of the 7th crusade is full of cases when mail and padding saved knights from arrows, although arrows would stuck in mail and knights would fight with arrows sticking out of their armor. Is their any contemporary source you can pull out to show me arrows pierced plate or even mail on regular basis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 17:32:12 GMT
Forget it. I've had this argument too many times. And none of the anti-bow folks ever want to actually read what I write or hear what I say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 20:41:09 GMT
here is a test vid or 2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 22:40:46 GMT
Please don't let this turn into an arrows vs armour thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2009 23:02:40 GMT
there are way too many variables for that discussion
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 3:45:24 GMT
I dont know, do those video's prove the fact or what, but hey when watching the first one its about 10 arrows in when one goes into the should area, guess if you were under a decent volley on a mount the horse is done, good chance of one getting in your visor, in the shoulder area, all those little openings
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 6:35:15 GMT
imho if you were in full plate on a moving horse the chances of an arrow piercing your armor would be very very slim if at all. yes an arrow from a longbow will penetrate armor given the right conditions (standing still and a direct hit), but when the target is moving.....well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2009 13:14:20 GMT
Unfortunately, they don't state the range, but given the penetration of a 100 Lb bow... English archers routinely carried 150 Lb bows and the Welsh are well known to have carried far more powerful bows. Well, I see a dead knight at whatever range that was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 2:43:49 GMT
spear for shure!long reach,and re-useable,unlike a bow.but why just one?variety is the spice of life!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2009 21:59:07 GMT
If we're talking about today, where nothing has changed, I'd go with a short sword (a good kukri, the spartan lakonia, a cutlass, a chisa katana, etc.) Most people are in cities, in tight spaces, and a long weapon is pointless in tight spaces, and the range advantage is lost to guns. Basically, it would be a last resort weapon, kind of like a good knife.
If for some magical reason guns were to dissapear, then a bow. You can't beat range.
Federico
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2009 23:11:52 GMT
You can beat range if your opponent runs out of arrows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2009 2:48:25 GMT
When I deer hunt, I very seldom taken a shot at something 50 yards away. Ideal range is between 20-30 yards, though I might take a chance at a good kill shot out to about 40 yards (level clear terrain, no wind, motionless target in perfect alignment).
For those of you that have never hunted with a bow, but think it is the perfect weapon - perhaps you should try bow hunting this season, it will change your opinion. You will find that it is not nearly as easy to kill something that lives and breathes with a bow as you think. A thinking being is not a hay bale waiting to be hit. There have been times where the deer has heard the bow string snap and was literally able to turn/move just enough in 1/4 a second to avoid the arrow hitting them. Hunting with a bow is a hard to master artform for many people, including myself. Even at 38 years old with 20+ years of experience, I have still not perfected it and probably never will.
When the English Longbowmen were winning, it was because they were pelting the battlefield over a large range with hundreds, if not thousands of arrows - not because one guy was the supreme archer sniper. My grandfather was a state archery champion in the 1950s in with a traditional longbow, and it was an exceptionally difficult task to hit a specific target at 100 yards even under perfect conditions with years of experience. They used to try to hit groundhogs at 100+ yards and there was a huge celebration if anyone actually did. It was a big damn deal to kill something at that range, more so with a longbow or recurve.
Now, if I was shooting an arrow at my kill and he was 40-50 yards away in ideal circumstances and something happened - say the arrow glanced off a rib, helmet, buckle, got caught in his armor without penetrating, etc - then I have a problem. If he sprints at my position from that distance, there is only about a 50% chance I can get off another arrow before he is on top of me. And that is if he is coming at me with a sword. If he is armed with a thowing weapon, I have even less time to react. I don't even have to mention that the bow is worthless in close quarters or heavily wooded areas, this is common sense.
I would use a bow, but only if I had a good sword as backup - because I know after the first (and definately after the second - if I made one) its going to come down to using steel on steel anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2009 3:35:20 GMT
Hello all, I am before anything an archer and feel quite confident with it at reasnable ranges. So my first choice would be a Longbow. 2nd choice would be an American War for Southern Independence 1860 Lt. Cav. Sabre. Freebooter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2009 4:14:38 GMT
Hello all, After reading the posts, I still would not want a real heavy bow. They might be able to penetrate armor but I do not like them. I tried a 100# longbow one time and could not handle it good enough or consistantly to be effetive with it. But I can take my 60# longbow and consistantly move around and put as many arrows as I want to in your armpit or other areas.
A year or so ago I went deer hunting and got tired of the danged Armadillos that infested the area and started popping them. As soon as they see you they go trotting and rambling off. Some are pretty fast. I shot five in a day or so. Some I shot relatively close, a few yards. But two I shot on the run at close to 25 yds, one broadside and the other right in the arse end as he ran from me. I am no Howard Hill, since the broadside shot was the fourth arrow I shot at him as he ran and I was stepping to my left all along, I missed the first three hitting inches behind him each time. But that is the benifit of a back quiver and a longbow, just snatch them out, knock, draw and shoot in one motion. I would never have been able to rapidly fire that bow had it been a big heavy like a 100 pounder. It takes some practice of course but to me a 60-70 pounder is just right. Get used to it and as Fred Bear called it, you can "Snap Shoot" rapidly and accurately if you get used to the bow and practice. Seems you could practice with a more powerful longbow but seems like your elbow, shoulder and back would bother you eventually. Freebooter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2009 15:44:54 GMT
They do bother you. And not eventually. But like any other exercise involving either strength or stamina (and shooting a powerful bow requires both), you train through it and eventually get to where your elbow and shoulder and back don't bother you anymore.
|
|
Dom T.
Member
Success, depress, ambition. Progress, regress, recognition.
Posts: 766
|
Post by Dom T. on Oct 16, 2009 16:41:42 GMT
Hm... interesting arguement with the arrows vs. armor. but really, im not nearly educated enough to add anything to that.
Personally, I would go with a short sword. Why? Well, probably unlike most of you, I'm am a very small person (short rather. very wide as well lol). I stand at an imposing 5'3" according to my last checkup. If I'm not running away, which would be my first choice, I would have to get pretty close to my enemy anyways. I'm also not trained in any swordsmanship at all, so using a sword against another swordsman would probably be to my disadvantage. But I do have a little bit of martial arts training, so I'll be most likely inside the guy's blood circle (what I call his range, lol. must be a holdover from my time as a boy scout). The few styles that I've tried are all pretty close up striking, as far as martial arts go. Not that I know too much about that either, lol. Plus I've got a terrible nearsightedness, and if the scenario happens, I think I'll lose my contacts quite easily. Can't aim an arrow if you can't see, even if I were good with a bow, which I am NOT.
|
|