I want to talk about Jorg Sprave's repeater,
Feb 3, 2020 8:44:02 GMT
Post by tsmspace on Feb 3, 2020 8:44:02 GMT
Nusensei the youtuber thinks that the instant legolas category of slingshotchannel bows would not have been preferred in history over traditional bows.
Jorg himself seems divided on the subject, and sometimes seems to think they would have been impactful and other times seems to think maybe not.
I have basically decided that they would have absolutely changed strategy for war, and probably the course of history.
-basically they would have been used for sure, at least for a few important frequent combat situations.
-therefore they would have affected the resources required for victory, as well as the training (and therefore culture) required for victory and therefore economic prowess and stability,,, which means that exactly who it was that won would have been different often enough to significantly impact the course of history.
::::::
I think I will try to outline a few simple concepts to support my opinion.
- it appears that it is common to think that actually there was plenty of time for archers to shoot arrows, after all they weren't going to shoot that many. ----- I suggest that this is the wrong logic. Instead, I suggest that archers actually just didn't have very much time at all that they could USE arrows effectively, so they weren't ever going to be ABLE to use that many, which is why it is that people had what we imagine as so few. (not more than a single instant legolas magazine for many histories).
Because arrows are reasonably effective, it would have been a very normal strategy to stay out of range of the arrows until the last possible moment, and then to be IN range of the arrows for as little time as possible before the arrows were no longer able to be used. One example i used to imagine this, is archers in position and under threat of a light cavalry charge. The cavalry would not approach to within range of the archers until they were going to charge directly at the archers at full speed. Actually, this would not take very long, and assuming that the archers would be under the stress of battle, it is reasonable that they would not be able to fire more than a small number (1 - 3 at best) of volleys before the cavalry hits them. They might also need to grab their spears in time for the cavalry to arrive, so they might not be able to shoot for the whole duration of the charge, and once the cavalry is close, they would need to prepare to accept it.
If the cavalry's commander knows that the archers will only be able to shoot once or twice before forming up with spears to accept the charge, then this will affect the expected casualties and therefore when and whether or not to charge. If the archers are able to fire 5 volleys at the light cavalry (not much armor), then they will be able to expect a significantly higher hit-casualty rate, which would certainly impact the decision to charge or not, and ALSO would impact the decision to keep using arrows, or switch to spears. (arrows could be expected to be ready for the entire charge, and also at point blank range in rapid succession)
situation 2:
- actually, if you wiki the historical repeating crossbow from china, the chukonu, then it is stated that it is used for ANOTHER situation which would have impacted decisions. If protecting a narrow space like doors, or wall-breaches, or against seige weapons like ladders, ramps, towers, tunnels, , then rapid fire makes arrows a viable option when they otherwise are not. If the opponent will be quite close and there will be many opponents, defenders would need to be able to have melee weapons in hand because if they can't fire as many arrows as there are people charging, they will be virtually unarmed and (someone from) the enemy will reach them. If the archer can be expected to fire faster than the rate of people moving through the door, then they can expect to win with arrows, and then also be AVAILABLE to use arrows at OTHER times (because although sometimes in battles we can imagine a person to be frozen in one spot for a long time, probably at other times in battles soldiers would need to be able to move frequently around to execute and counter tactics and strategies,,, and if someone has an axe, they don't have a sword, and if they have an axe they don't have arrows, but if they had arrows,, ) , we can probably assume that ranged weapons are much more frequently useful, because soldiers using ranged weapons don't need to travel all the way to the target before striking them, and are therefore able to strike more targets with less moving around.
basically the MAIN REASON arrows and slings aren't preferred over melee weapons is that the firing rate can't overcome a large number of opponents in a short enough period of time. It's true that armor IS a reason to require melee weapons, but it's probably more frequently true that archers won't be able to shoot enough arrows to prevent their opponent from reaching them with melee weapons, to justify that person being an archer instead of a melee infantry. .
so the overall discussion is :: what decisions would be made for equipment and infrastructure and training as a result, and would that have impacted the behavior and victors of the people. ,, and in this case, what other situations would be the crucial deciding factors in making these decisions?? Or, what else could be said about the situations I've presented?
-
Jorg himself seems divided on the subject, and sometimes seems to think they would have been impactful and other times seems to think maybe not.
I have basically decided that they would have absolutely changed strategy for war, and probably the course of history.
-basically they would have been used for sure, at least for a few important frequent combat situations.
-therefore they would have affected the resources required for victory, as well as the training (and therefore culture) required for victory and therefore economic prowess and stability,,, which means that exactly who it was that won would have been different often enough to significantly impact the course of history.
::::::
I think I will try to outline a few simple concepts to support my opinion.
- it appears that it is common to think that actually there was plenty of time for archers to shoot arrows, after all they weren't going to shoot that many. ----- I suggest that this is the wrong logic. Instead, I suggest that archers actually just didn't have very much time at all that they could USE arrows effectively, so they weren't ever going to be ABLE to use that many, which is why it is that people had what we imagine as so few. (not more than a single instant legolas magazine for many histories).
Because arrows are reasonably effective, it would have been a very normal strategy to stay out of range of the arrows until the last possible moment, and then to be IN range of the arrows for as little time as possible before the arrows were no longer able to be used. One example i used to imagine this, is archers in position and under threat of a light cavalry charge. The cavalry would not approach to within range of the archers until they were going to charge directly at the archers at full speed. Actually, this would not take very long, and assuming that the archers would be under the stress of battle, it is reasonable that they would not be able to fire more than a small number (1 - 3 at best) of volleys before the cavalry hits them. They might also need to grab their spears in time for the cavalry to arrive, so they might not be able to shoot for the whole duration of the charge, and once the cavalry is close, they would need to prepare to accept it.
If the cavalry's commander knows that the archers will only be able to shoot once or twice before forming up with spears to accept the charge, then this will affect the expected casualties and therefore when and whether or not to charge. If the archers are able to fire 5 volleys at the light cavalry (not much armor), then they will be able to expect a significantly higher hit-casualty rate, which would certainly impact the decision to charge or not, and ALSO would impact the decision to keep using arrows, or switch to spears. (arrows could be expected to be ready for the entire charge, and also at point blank range in rapid succession)
situation 2:
- actually, if you wiki the historical repeating crossbow from china, the chukonu, then it is stated that it is used for ANOTHER situation which would have impacted decisions. If protecting a narrow space like doors, or wall-breaches, or against seige weapons like ladders, ramps, towers, tunnels, , then rapid fire makes arrows a viable option when they otherwise are not. If the opponent will be quite close and there will be many opponents, defenders would need to be able to have melee weapons in hand because if they can't fire as many arrows as there are people charging, they will be virtually unarmed and (someone from) the enemy will reach them. If the archer can be expected to fire faster than the rate of people moving through the door, then they can expect to win with arrows, and then also be AVAILABLE to use arrows at OTHER times (because although sometimes in battles we can imagine a person to be frozen in one spot for a long time, probably at other times in battles soldiers would need to be able to move frequently around to execute and counter tactics and strategies,,, and if someone has an axe, they don't have a sword, and if they have an axe they don't have arrows, but if they had arrows,, ) , we can probably assume that ranged weapons are much more frequently useful, because soldiers using ranged weapons don't need to travel all the way to the target before striking them, and are therefore able to strike more targets with less moving around.
basically the MAIN REASON arrows and slings aren't preferred over melee weapons is that the firing rate can't overcome a large number of opponents in a short enough period of time. It's true that armor IS a reason to require melee weapons, but it's probably more frequently true that archers won't be able to shoot enough arrows to prevent their opponent from reaching them with melee weapons, to justify that person being an archer instead of a melee infantry. .
so the overall discussion is :: what decisions would be made for equipment and infrastructure and training as a result, and would that have impacted the behavior and victors of the people. ,, and in this case, what other situations would be the crucial deciding factors in making these decisions?? Or, what else could be said about the situations I've presented?
-