Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Spiryt]

The genius of the English long bow was not as a "super weapon", but in the sheer numbers employed and their tactical deployment in combination with other elements. That is not to say the long bow was not a powerful bow with a relatively fast shooting rate, just that it is "horses for courses".

"Longbow" is just simple bow from one type of wood with generally 'D' shaped cross section, which is unsurprisingly long one as far as bows go....

There's nothing inherently "powerful" about it, and fast shooting rate in particular has almost nothing to do with type of the bow.

There were low poundage longbows, as well as 150 pounds monsters, it seems, as well as there certainly were clunkers along with very efficient and accurate ones.

Although data and experiments show that above 60 pounds, even most ingenuously made longbow generally would be slightly worse in the terms of any performance than composite reflexive bow of turkish, mongolian, or whatever design.

That's not the point here, though. The point is that this myth of "super weapon" longbow is indeed frankly ridiculous one.

[Xuc Xac]

That's not the point here, though. The point is that this myth of "super weapon" longbow is indeed frankly ridiculous one.

The longbow was the katana for Victorian era nerds.

[Matthew]

"Longbow" is just simple bow from one type of wood with generally 'D' shaped cross section, which is unsurprisingly long one as far as bows go....

There's nothing inherently "powerful" about it, and fast shooting rate in particular has almost nothing to do with type of the bow.

There were low poundage longbows, as well as 150 pounds monsters, it seems, as well as there certainly were clunkers along with very efficient and accurate ones.

Although data and experiments show that above 60 pounds, even most ingenuously made longbow generally would be slightly worse in the terms of any performance than composite reflexive bow of Turkish, Mongolian, or whatever design.

Sure, do not misunderstand me, I am saying that the long bows deployed in the hundred years war were powerful in the sense of not particularly inferior to the crossbows of the same period when employed by men trained in their use, and could be shot faster. Whether that matters on the battlefield depends on what is valued there, and the same for sieges, skirmishes, and raids.

That's not the point here, though. The point is that this myth of "super weapon" longbow is indeed frankly ridiculous one.

Certainly, I would tend to agree with that.

[MarkusWolfe]

I know that the Celts figured out how to forge iron so that it is stronger than bronze (even well enough to be considered steel), and that they figured out chainmail. Can I get a timeline on these metallurgical/military advances? Also, what sort of armor was common during the Dark Ages?

[Galloglaich]

I guess what I've been trying to explain about crossbows vs. longbows vs. firearms, is that while crossbows had a shorter overall range, they had a longer effective direct shot range at which they could target an individual human (or human on a horse) target than longbows. Crossbows could also be shot in an arc but only a very shallow arc.

So wherever you want to put the number for longbows, 50 yards, maybe 100 yards to target an individual human, beyond that you can only really use it for indirect shots like a mortar. The really heavy crossbows could apparently shoot accurately 150 to 200 yards. So lets say your longbow is shooting 8 to 10 shots per minute, but they are shooting at an area. The way they trained was shooting at a 30' sheet. So most of these arrows are actually going to miss. The Crossbow by contrast is getting maybe 6 shots a minute, but they are all aimed, most (or more at any rate) are going to hit.

I think this is what the 15th and 16th Century sources meant when they said crossbows were more accurate.

It was somewhat similar for early firearms which also did not have the ballistic arc ability that a longbow or recurve bow had, but shot in a strait line. But early firearms were not very accurate so they shot in volleys to make up for it; still something like area fire but more concentrated so again, a higher percentage of hits per round going downrange.


As a result of these dichotomies, the crossbow proved more useful at short to medium ranges. The longbow was good at point blank range or long range. The handgonne or arquebus was good at point blank to medium range.

So depending on the terrain, that will tell you which weapon is more useful. In a really open terrain like at Agincourt, the longbow is the more useful weapon. In a closer terrain like at Grandson or Morat, the crossbow and the handgonne are more useful (also because of the overhead cover of forests, which makes the arcing shots of the longbow less effective)

Does that make sense?

G.

[Galloglaich]

I know that the Celts figured out how to forge iron so that it is stronger than bronze (even well enough to be considered steel), and that they figured out chainmail. Can I get a timeline on these metallurgical/military advances? Also, what sort of armor was common during the Dark Ages?

Most common armor were bronze or iron helmets, and probably textile armor. The most prestige armor that everyone wanted was mail. (i.e. "Chainmail")

Most common protection though were shields.

Most common weapons were javelins. Then spears and knives, then axes, then swords. Swords were the prestige weapon everyone wanted though.

Early iron was not strong enough to make swords and early iron weapons are mostly spearheads and small daggers. Halstadt Celts started making pattern welded and forge-welded swords (sort of a mechanical composite steel) very soon after they adopted iron in the 8th Century, but these weapons were very rare. Steel (or 'steely iron') started to show up in some quantities in Celtiberian Spain, notably in falcatas, by the 4th or 5th century BC. The first notable center in Central Europe was in the early 3rd Century BC in Noricum, a multi-ethnic La Tene Celtic / Illyrian (proto slavic) tribal federation centered in what is now Austria and Slovenia. Many of these early Celtic, Celtiberrian and Illyrian weapons were steel but not tempered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noricum

The Romans had a huge demand for this steel and Noricum was flooded with Roman merchants who set up shop there. The Romans annexed it in 16BC. From that point on steel became increasingly common and head spread to the Germanic, proto-Slavic and Scandinavian tribes. As a result, more and more large (3 feet) swords became increasingly commonplace.

G.

[Galloglaich]

At range, that's a rather different story. From what I know, the bolt is a less rather less efficient projectile, both from the design of the pointy end and the general aerodynamic properties. So, while the crossbow could theoretically generate more power at the prod, by the time the projectile got there (assuming battlefield ranges) it'd bled off a large portion.

Yes, the crossbow bolt was not aerodynamic the way an arrow was. Once the energy ran out it basically didn't fly any more. This is why the crossbow was not capable of the high ballistic arcs the longbow (and recurve) used to get the really long range they had (except with special 'gadfly' bolts which didn't do much damage). But the crossbow could shoot a heavier bolt at a slightly higher velocity in a strait line a further distance. Same for the lead balls shot by early firearms.

G.

[Galloglaich]

That's not a viable claim. You're mixing sociological and strategic issues with hardware specs. The two have nothing to do with each other.

I'm just saying the English with their longbows were not as invincible as their history would have you believe. Their victories over the French were as much about French Chivalric / Aristocratic arrogance and stupidity than they were about English longbows.

Both are subject to gravity. Which shoots more levelly is a matter purely of velocity and any lift generated by the projectile. And whereas a crossbow looses a lot of velocity, shooting in an arc means you have gravity working on your side when it comes to impact velocity.

Yes but the crossbow apparently could be shot more accurately in that initial strait line distance.

They are? Given the better aerodynamic qualities of a decent arrow, I don't see that there should be much difference, giving good training. After all: We've been hunting small game with bows for a very long time. I'm not an archer, though.

Ask a hunter how far you can hit a deer with a bow.

Battlefield crossbows comparable in power to longbows with a single man using? A shot every 10 seconds using a mechanical assist to arm the bow? Really? How?

This video is from a pro-longbow guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs

Of course that is only a stirrup crossbow, it's military grade but not the really powerful cranequin type. Hopefully we'll get to see a demonstration with one of those. Historically, a crossbow was a team of two men, one loading while the other shot.

Even if the rate of fire is 7 compared to 10; that's enough. Put down twice as much equally (on battlefield scale) accurate ammunition as your foe and you win. Firepower's effectiveness has been shown to be squared, not linear; and that advantage equates to a massive one.

Like I said above, longbows were not accurate for individual target at their maximum range. Rate of shot is not the only relevant factor.

Hundred year war - clue is in the name. The great three battles were massive victories long before the French started listening to a mad French teenager and kicked the English out of their own country. It wan't just in England that these battles were famous: They shook Europe.

Indeed, as much because of the way French cannons shattered tough English armies at the end of the war as when longbows defeated the formidable French Cavalry in the beginning.

But the defeat of heavy cavalry in the 100 years war was nothing new. The first big examples that REALLY shook Europe were at Golden Spurs (1302), Morgarten (1315), and Bannockburn (1314), where commoners fighting as infantry defeated the cream of knightly heavy cavalry.

I dont' fully agree with the villainization fo the English, but there is a point; the Engish did adopt propaganda very early (and well) but also, here in the US (and by extension in the American dominated English speaking part of the internet) due to our lack of understanding of Continental European lanaguages, we yanks get almost all of our History through an English filter (and through a French filter seen through an English filter) which does emphasize the importance of their achievements. But as I've said before in this thread, both England and France were cultural, economic and political backwaters in the 15th and early 16th Century, when the Renaissance was already going strong in Flanders, Germany and Italy.

As a result, our Anglophile version of history is very simplified, the source of all the cliches in DnD and SCA and the US "Renaissance Faire" and Sci Fi Channel movies are in the Monty Python image of filthy peasants digging in the mud and Feudal lords recieving swords from moistened bints. While this was maybe going on in England Renaissance painters were making tryptichs in Florence, tempered steel armor was being mass produced in Milan and Barcelona using automated water mills, Czechs were introducing firearms to European battlefields, Gutenburg was making the printing press, and most armies in the economic and military center of Europe were hiring crossbow marksmen instead of longbow archers.

G.

[Yora]

Simple question, with a possibly very complex answer:

How much use are unarmed martial arts in warfare, if at all? I see how it can be useful in a brawl when you just want to beat each other up without anyone getting killed. But supposed you're wearing armor and have a weapon at hand, is there any reason to make use of you're unarmed martial arts knowledge?
And supposed you don't have any weapons at hand but your attackers do, is your martial arts training anything but "better than nothing"?

[Psyx]

I know that the Celts figured out how to forge iron so that it is stronger than bronze (even well enough to be considered steel), and that they figured out chainmail. Can I get a timeline on these metallurgical/military advances? Also, what sort of armor was common during the Dark Ages?

'Celts' covers a rather large area and timescale, as does 'dark ages'.
What are you after, specifically? What peoples/culture? Viking? Pre-roman Anglo-celts?

Mail certainly wasn't 'common', as it is very expensive. Likewise pattern-welded weapons. They were the panoply of status.

So wherever you want to put the number for longbows, 50 yards, maybe 100 yards to target an individual human, beyond that you can only really use it for indirect shots like a mortar. The really heavy crossbows could apparently shoot accurately 150 to 200 yards. So lets say your longbow is shooting 8 to 10 shots per minute, but they are shooting at an area. The way they trained was shooting at a 30' sheet. So most of these arrows are actually going to miss. The Crossbow by contrast is getting maybe 6 shots a minute, but they are all aimed, most (or more at any rate) are going to hit.

Whoa.

'indirect fire' does NOT mean inaccurate. Ever.
One can quite happily plop 40mm grenades into a 50gallon barrel with not too much practice at 200m. 100 years ago we were dropping artillery barrages 50 yards in front of advancing troops from miles away. Slings are frighteningly accurate, too. Archers didn't even bother practising at anything less than... was it 200 yards?

Don't judge accuracy by the size of the target, either. Shooting targets are pretty large, but anyone who isn't consistently hitting within 5-10% of the centre isn't even in contention. Are we to say that pistols are inaccure because the 10m competition target is the size it is?

And who cares about targeting individuals anyhow? Infantry or cavalry formations that were not loosely formed, because then they'd get cut to ribbons. Drop an arrow into a formation at a 45 degree angle and it would be hard NOT to hit something. Unless you are proposing that at that range crossbow users were able to pinpoint specific weak-points on individual targets that archers were not?

I'm not disagreeing that the longbow was not vastly superior in every way, but I'm heavily disagreeing with the logic by which you're reaching that conclusion.

[Psyx]

Simple question, with a possibly very complex answer:

How much use are unarmed martial arts in warfare, if at all?

In desperation!

Ju-jitsu techniques for example often suppose that your foe is armed and armoured - where punching them probably wouldn't do anything but get you killed - but was a second-line of defence, and a lot of it focuses on getting your foe's weapon out of his hands and into yours!

'Unarmed' techniques such as grapples, sweeps and trips were often heavily integrated into armed warfare, often using the weapon in some way to assist the technique, but that doesn't really count, I guess: You wouldn't want to step into sword fight completely unarmed if you could help it.

I imagine that it's perhaps cultural, though. Anyone know of a culture where you would go into a knife-fight with bare hands?

[Storm Bringer]

Simple question, with a possibly very complex answer:

How much use are unarmed martial arts in warfare, if at all? I see how it can be useful in a brawl when you just want to beat each other up without anyone getting killed. But supposed you're wearing armor and have a weapon at hand, is there any reason to make use of you're unarmed martial arts knowledge?
And supposed you don't have any weapons at hand but your attackers do, is your martial arts training anything but "better than nothing"?

short answer: yes.

longer answer: in classic DnD full plate armour/harness, one of the accepted methods of defeating it was was to pin the wearer long enough to get a dagger in the armpit or some other weak spot. Obviously, this requires you to be both able to pin someone, and be able to defend agianst being pinned.

[MarkusWolfe]

'Celts' covers a rather large area and timescale, as does 'dark ages'.
What are you after, specifically? What peoples/culture? Viking? Pre-roman Anglo-celts?

Mail certainly wasn't 'common', as it is very expensive. Likewise pattern-welded weapons. They were the panoply of status.

I know it was the Celts of modern day UK that figured out iron and chainmail. I also know that good swords were rare.

As for the Dark Ages.....I hear it was all leather and chainmail for the vikings, but I don't know what the other Europeans were wearing at the time.

Also, what degree of plate armor existed during the Dark Ages? Chainmail was the norm, but I think anyone with common sense would have the pieces that are inflexible anyways (forearms, shins, head) protected by gauntlets/greeves/helmets that were solid steel.

[Yora]

'Unarmed' techniques such as grapples, sweeps and trips were often heavily integrated into armed warfare, often using the weapon in some way to assist the technique, but that doesn't really count, I guess: You wouldn't want to step into sword fight completely unarmed if you could help it.

Or let's put it this way. Does a swordman who knows karate or judo have any more chance to win a fight than one who doesn't?

Do you actually get opportunities to kick or punch at your oponent while you're holding a weapon? I know only some basics of unarmed combat and nothing about sword fighting, but both do not seem very well suited to be combined. With a shield, punching and kicking seems completely out of the question, and even with a two-handed weapon, you'd probably have to be really good to release one hand, make a punch, get your grip back, and your guard back up before the oponent has a chance to strike.

[Spiryt]

As other's said, wrestling, or any other form of grappling would be often very useful, or even crucial in armored combat.

Just take a look at some Talhoffer interpretations .

Unarmed striking techniques probably not so much really, even though well placed elbow, knee or punch would be pain, especially if you're armored.

you'd probably have to be really good to release one hand, make a punch, get your grip back, and your guard back up before the oponent has a chance to strike.

Trying something like that would be rather idiotic, unarmed strikes could be incorporated if there's good opportunity to use them, obviously.

Incorporating them at all cost.... No.

[Yora]

Just take a look at some Talhoffer interpretations .

Interesting. The technique at 1:40 is basically exactly the same that is tought to beginners in Aikido. I didn't think of taking hold of the hand with your guard.

[Spiryt]

Here something about wrestling teaching of Otto the Jew...

Link

I could only find in polish this quick... but as you've got some German words there, you can probably find more of the original text and info in German.

[MickJay]

Speaking of how well trained/untrained the crossbowmen were, it really depended on the time and place where they were used. In the 15th century Poland, for example, it was fairly typical that the men were recruited to serve as crossbowmen for a season, or a year. These would be apprentices and the like, inexperienced in combat, who would be quickly trained and deployed where needed. The favourite weapon of these troops was crossbow (gradually replaced by firearms over the decades). Relatively few, more experienced and better armed men would serve to protect the crossbowmen from sudden attacks (the general tactics was for these troops to maneouver on the edge of the "proper" battle, deliver volleys where they would do most harm to the enemy, and retreat/regroup when directly threatened.

Of course, these were not mercenaries in the strict sense of the word: the man organizing the troops would first receive a letter from the local commander, authorizing him to recruit a given number of men, and these would be dismissed after the contract expired.

[endoperez]

With a shield, punching and kicking seems completely out of the question, and even with a two-handed weapon, you'd probably have to be really good to release one hand, make a punch, get your grip back, and your guard back up before the oponent has a chance to strike.

You can always punch with the shield. If something goes wrong, letting go of your weapon and wrestling with the opponent might be the best option left for you, as seen in this demonstration based on Hans Czynner's treatise.
Also, in this video one arm is freed from the weapon to parry, on the second hit. Doesn't work out perfectly, but any way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA4FHLRLFbs

Many Chinese styles have both armed and unarmed techniques, and like in this video you often see both in demonstrations. They have one free hand in this video, though, and it makes things a lot easier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4bdm60npxM


Even when unarmed attacks can't be used like that, if you've learned to fight unarmed, you've learned about timing, distance, reading or controlling or bluffing the opponent and other such things. Those skills will be useful. You can also learn them through weapons practice as well, of course, but someone who has unarmed experience doesn't have to relearn all of that when he finds himself holding a weapon.

[Raum]

Simple question, with a possibly very complex answer:

How much use are unarmed martial arts in warfare, if at all?

Depends on what you mean by 'used'. :) Hand to hand combat (unarmed and bayonet) is still taught today...so obviously it's important. Part of the importance stems from the training itself. It teaches both control and aggression while promoting fitness. On the battlefield, it's one of those things which is important 'when you need it' and then it's extremely important. Ask any Vietnam vet who had to deal with the enemy getting to his foxhole. I suspect it's still relevant in the modern urban combat scenarios. Not something you want to have to fall back on, but needed when you can't control the engagement range. For that matter, I believe the British used bayonets in Fallujah - though it's been long enough I'm not certain.

[Subotei]

To me, I think a lot of the crossbow vs longbow debate misses the point. Both were effective weapons - only idiots take ineffective weapons onto a battlefield, and natural selection rapidly takes over. Essentially they did the same thing - put a pointy thing into a target over a distance - the differences (penetration vs rate of fire) are minor.

Given rough parity in weapons, then the most important aspects in victories are leadership and tactics. Agincourt as a case in point - both sides were professional soldiers, however the English had an excellent leader and chose (inso far as they could) tactics which suited them. The French were, on the day, divided and essentially leaderless, and their tactical mistakes stemmed from that, resulting in chaos. Had the English been armed with crossbows, the final result would've probably been the same.

[Mike_G]

Whoa.

'indirect fire' does NOT mean inaccurate. Ever.
One can quite happily plop 40mm grenades into a 50gallon barrel with not too much practice at 200m. 100 years ago we were dropping artillery barrages 50 yards in front of advancing troops from miles away. Slings are frighteningly accurate, too. Archers didn't even bother practising at anything less than... was it 200 yards?

Don't judge accuracy by the size of the target, either. Shooting targets are pretty large, but anyone who isn't consistently hitting within 5-10% of the centre isn't even in contention. Are we to say that pistols are inaccure because the 10m competition target is the size it is?

And who cares about targeting individuals anyhow? Infantry or cavalry formations that were not loosely formed, because then they'd get cut to ribbons. Drop an arrow into a formation at a 45 degree angle and it would be hard NOT to hit something. Unless you are proposing that at that range crossbow users were able to pinpoint specific weak-points on individual targets that archers were not?

I'm not disagreeing that the longbow was not vastly superior in every way, but I'm heavily disagreeing with the logic by which you're reaching that conclusion.

I second this. If my target is an enemy pike schiltron or a "Battle" of French men at arms slogging through the mud toward me, I'm perfectly content to drop ten arrows a minute into the middle of the press and call that a win.

Sieges are different. You may want to pick off one archer on the battlement. Modern combat is different, since you are shooting at dispersed individuals who are taking cover or moving rapidly from cover to cover. But if the target is a Column of the Old Guard, aiming for the middle and firing as fast as you can will do some damage. A Swiss pike square depends on being densely packed for protection against cavalry charges. Artillery or a storm of arrows would be the worst thing the could encounter.

Longbow vs Schiltron is one reason Scotland spent so much time as part of the UK. If Edward had taken more time to soften Bruce's army up with archery at Bannockburn instead of throwing his cavalry at pikepoints, things may have turned out very differently.

[Aroka]

Interesting. The technique at 1:40 is basically exactly the same that is tought to beginners in Aikido. I didn't think of taking hold of the hand with your guard.

The sword is a great tool even when you're not cutting or thrusting with it.

For instance, grappling is a very basic component of longsword fighting, but the longsword is still your main weapon; it's a great level/fulcrum for binds, locks, holds, trips, and throws, and some of the tricks you can do with it are pretty stunning.

Relatedly, Aikido includes a lot of anti-katana techniques, doesn't it? Are there techniques for performing the grappling moves while holding a katana? I'm curious about just how similar longsword and kenjutsu really are as styles - if both integrated grappling, for instance.

[Norsesmithy]

It's my experience watching and participating with people who have trained in Jujitsu, Akido, and Germanic HEMA style fighting that many of the techniques are very similar. But that the reconstituted western arts tend to be a little more aggressive and brutal, teaching students the sorts of things that cripple people in sparing at a earlier point in training.

[Aroka]

It's my experience watching and participating with people who have trained in Jujitsu, Akido, and Germanic HEMA style fighting that many of the techniques are very similar. But that the reconstituted western arts tend to be a little more aggressive and brutal, teaching students the sorts of things that cripple people in sparing at a earlier point in training.

Good point - Aikido is pretty sterilized and filtered. It might be more useful to look at Aikijujutsu. D'oh.

[fusilier]

It was somewhat similar for early firearms which also did not have the ballistic arc ability that a longbow or recurve bow had, but shot in a strait line. But early firearms were not very accurate so they shot in volleys to make up for it; still something like area fire but more concentrated so again, a higher percentage of hits per round going downrange.

Minor bone of contention here, I believe that massed volleys weren't introduced until the early 17th century. Prior to the introduction of the volley, they tended to favor deep formations where the front rank retired after firing, and the next rank stepped up. This allowed continuous fire. So the total effect was probably much the same. Also, I'm not so sure that an arquebus was that inaccurate compared to a crossbow, although the predecessors to the arquebus almost certainly were.

A quick comment about 10 shots a minute at long range with a longbow: It's not a machine gun. I would save that rapid fire for when the enemy is close, rather than wear out your archers with less effectual long range fire. For that matter some efficiency minded machine gun theorists might not think you should blast away at long range either. ;-)

[HenryHankovitch]

It's worth bearing in mind, when talking about bows and crossbows and the like, that before gunpowder, all these missile weapons were merely (very simple) machines for turning muscle power into kinetic energy. Throw a spear, your arm muscles are putting kinetic energy directly into the missile. Draw a bow, and you're simply compressing a spring which then transfers its energy to the missile on release. (The mechanical benefit here, is that you don't have to move your arm as fast as the resulting missile travels; a "slow" pull results in a "fast" arrow).

So with any form of simple bow, the biggest constraint on the weapon's power is the strength and skill of the person using it. Well duh, we think, referencing all those stories about training an English archer from childhood. But what this also means is that an individual's performance is not consistent over time. With each drawing of the bow, your archer is becoming more fatigued. He'll lose muscle strength, which means that eventually he won't be able to draw the bow completely, and he'll lose power. If we imagine drawing an English warbow to be a level of physical exertion similar to performing a heavy bench-press, you see what I mean. Five repetitions, ten, twenty...eventually your archer loses power, and at some point will simply be unable to draw his bow at all. Perhaps even more importantly, this means your archers can also be hindered by long marches, short rations, disease, dehydration, and privation--all the things you can expect on a military campaign.

Now, a crossbow uses the same mechanical principle; but the big difference is that most of them use additional mechanical devices to aid in drawing the bow (compressing the spring). A pulley or lever, a foot-loop letting you use your legs instead of your shoulders and arms, and so on. Even having someone else draw the bow for you, and then hand it to you ready to fire: you now have a machine that lets you hurl a projectile using someone else's muscles. Eventually, fatigue will also take its toll on a crossbow-man; but you can see where its effects could be greatly mitigated by the machine being used. Your tired/malnourished soldiers retain their full effectiveness for a longer period of time. The same applied to muskets as well: your soldier only needed to be strong enough to stand up, load the musket and fire.

What it really comes down to is that longbowmen--people able to draw those very heavy warbows--simply weren't a renewable resource. Not in the military sense. When you lost them, you couldn't simply go home for the winter and train a bunch more; you had to wait for their kids to grow up. IIRC, the law requiring English peasants to train with bows on Sundays was passed specifically because the Crown realized that they weren't replacing their archers in sufficient numbers. The fact that they had to pass a law demonstrates how they were already losing their supply of "recreational" archers.

One other thing: people discussing the cost/benefit of archery rarely mention the arrows. Arrow-shafts are handcrafted items, and good arrows are actually difficult and time-intensive to make, compared to a quarrel or a lead musket-ball. Cracks, splits, and warps in the wood can cause your shot to go awry, or even cause it to break as it leaves the bow. So now you have to manufacture a bunch of arrows, keep them well-protected and out of the rain and sun, make sure nobody piles a bunch of barrels on them or sits on them or anything else. That's expensive, both in terms of money and of man-hours and effort in the field.

[HenryHankovitch]

I second this. If my target is an enemy pike schiltron or a "Battle" of French men at arms slogging through the mud toward me, I'm perfectly content to drop ten arrows a minute into the middle of the press and call that a win.

Which is why pike-squares were usually used in a combined-arms system with crossbows, arquebuses or muskets. That formation "slogging" before you is bringing its own light infantry along with it, throwing missiles right back at you. It wouldn't have been a useful tactic if it had no recourse against enemy crossbowmen.

The vulnerability of the square formation doesn't become a real hindrance until the advent of light field artillery, which can be moved into position and fired directly onto the tight-packed, advancing squares. That's part of what made the shift to thin lines desirable; and so by the Napoleonic era, maneuvering from a line to a square formation is a dicey concern.

[Psyx]

“Yes but the crossbow apparently could be shot more accurately in that initial strait line distance.”

I’m not seeing that pin-point accuracy is particularly useful. A crossbow block being physically charged is in big trouble. Archers… still in trouble, but at least they can get more ammunition on-target while it’s happening. One accurate shot point-blank versus 3 argueably-maybe-slightly less accurate ones aimed at a close formation. I know where my money is!


“Ask a hunter how far you can hit a deer with a bow.”
I don’t know of anyone in this country who is barbaric enough to shoot deer with bows and let them pretty much bleed out. If you can't take down a deer without central nervous system trauma that will instantly kill it; you shouldn't be shooting at deer.


“Of course that is only a stirrup crossbow, it's military grade but not the really powerful cranequin type.”

See, this is kind of what I have a bit of an issue with. We see that a crossbow is ‘more powerful’ and ‘better ranged’ than a longbow, and then the rate of fire is compared favourably, too. When the reality is that the crossbows more powerful than a longbow are far, far slower, and the crossbows that have a decent rate of fire are outperformed by longbows in other aspects. It’s a poor comparison.


“Like I said above, longbows were not accurate for individual target at their maximum range.”

Have we much evidence to state that crossbows were; with their lower terminal velocity? I'm not really an expert on the accuracy of such weapons, to be honest. And my point is that it doesn’t matter: Individuals are not the target in massed battle: Put down the fire into the ranks as fast as possible.
Now in sieges, where marksmen are dispersed because of the lack of risk of being charged, then I would put a crossbow above a longbow in terms of usefulness pretty much every time.

“I don’t fully agree with the villainization of the English”

I don’t see why they would be vilified over the matter historically, unless there was existing prejudice. All of Europe at the time was neck-deep in ruthless nobles.
Everyone’s view of history has moved on great leaps and bounds since the early fantasy writers butchered a lot of it, and provided us with many of our clichés. To be fair: They weren’t interested in writing ‘accurate’ books or games. And if our view of European history is rather twisted; our view of Eastern history is even more skewed. At least with European history there have been a lot of English-language books on the subject, covered a good spectrum of bias and prejudice. I think that the labelling of [certainly modern - we can be a little more dismissive of older literature] English-language historians as -on the whole- Anglophile is slightly academically unfair.

“One of the accepted methods of defeating it was was to pin the wearer long enough to get a dagger in the armpit or some other weak spot. Obviously, this requires you to be both able to pin someone, and be able to defend agianst being pinned.”

Although of course you wouldn’t initially step into the fight bare-handed. It rather cuts down the options and announces the intentions. It would be perhaps terminally foolish.

“As for the Dark Ages.....I hear it was all leather and chainmail for the vikings, but I don't know what the other Europeans were wearing at the time.”

There’s been little that survived, archeologically. And the Viking cultures didn’t write too much down. I believe scale armour saw a little use – again as a status thing. Helmets – obviously. No horns on them, though! The premier piece of armour for them though was the shield.

“Also, what degree of plate armor existed during the Dark Ages? Chainmail was the norm, but I think anyone with common sense would have the pieces that are inflexible anyways (forearms, shins, head) protected by gauntlets/greeves/helmets that were solid steel.”

It didn’t. Iron was a very expensive commodity for one, and mail was not really ‘the norm’ as much as something to aspire to. I’m not a smith, but there’s more to making armour than just knocking a square of it into shape. Helms of the time were metal, but they were also made of horn as well. Additionally: They were composite affairs with a thicker metal frame and thinner metal or horn plates between them. I can’t immediately think of any surviving metal examples of greaves or bracers. Greaves though are fairly niche, as lower leg blows don’t tend to happen very much unless sweeping polearms are used – or long weapons, at least.

“Or let's put it this way. Does a swordman who knows karate or judo have any more chance to win a fight than one who doesn't?”

Judo is a sport, and is somewhat artificial as an art, but yet: If it got close and personal, then knowledge of balance, holds, chokes and throws would be useful. These techniques work well against armoured foes. That’s IF you could get past the weapon though – which is something that judo does not teach. Karate… not so much. It’s a very rarefied and linear form to start with, rather than an art designed to work in armed combat. Punches and kicks are going to be useless against armour, and that degree of extension is very unwise against an armed foe. Kicks above the knee would end in tears for the practitioner. I would not try to deliver a punch in a sword fight. Maybe an elbow strike if I was inside guard and midway through a take-down or disarm, but certainly not a punch.

“Aikido includes a lot of anti-katana techniques, doesn't it?”

Yes. Much stems from Ju-jitsu, which is pretty much expressly for dealing with armed foes.

“Are there techniques for performing the grappling moves while holding a katana? I'm curious about just how similar longsword and kenjutsu really are as styles - if both integrated grappling, for instance.”

Yes, although they’re not ‘basic’ teaching.
‘Kenjitsu’ covers a wide swathe of styles, as do Western sword styles. They’re both swords so much that holds true for using one holds true for the other, but much ken-jitsu that has survived today was from a peaceful period in Japanese history where the sword was employed against unarmoured foes and in duels in the same way as Western rapier styles. Whereas in the West effective armour was a more regular ‘threat’, and the styles needed to be able to deal with it.

“But that the reconstituted western arts tend to be a little more aggressive and brutal, teaching students the sorts of things that cripple people in sparing at a earlier point in training.”

That’s because the Western arts are a direct ‘rebuild’ of the old versions. There has been no real ongoing tradition, outside of fencing. Much of the Aikido and Ju-jitsu taught today is very watered down and much less lethal to use – or at least the early lessons are. Truth be told: Ju-jitsu is an utterly brutal no-holds barred style that makes Krav Magna look like patty-cake. Don’t be fooled by what you might see in a modern dojo. Aikido too is still pretty brutal, but it’s taught in a safe manner.

For example; many aikido techniques don’t work if the foe has a bar-straight arm. Students tend to be taught to push the inside of the elbow to bend it and deliver the technique, and practice partners obligingly keep their arm slightly bent. This is the ‘nice’ way. The reality of the situation is that anyone dumb enough to keep their arm straight would receive an open-hand press on the outside of the joint to break the elbow and THEN the rest of the technique would be completed. Likewise, when taking a foe to the floor in an arm-bar, you put your knees each side of the shoulder to keep them in-joint, then apply pressure. In reality, you deliver the technique fully on the way down and dislocate the shoulder THEN break the arm. Aikido and Ju-jitsu are far less pleasant and a lot more ruthless to be on the receiving end than a lot of other arts. They just look ‘soft’ because sparring accidents would be very unpleasant.

“this means your archers can also be hindered by long marches, short rations, disease, dehydration, and privation--all the things you can expect on a military campaign. “

This is true, but didn’t stop the English from winning at Agincourt, despite hunger, fatigue and disease.

[Mike_G]

Which is why pike-squares were usually used in a combined-arms system with crossbows, arquebuses or muskets. That formation "slogging" before you is bringing its own light infantry along with it, throwing missiles right back at you. It wouldn't have been a useful tactic if it had no recourse against enemy crossbowmen.

It was effective enough against the French at Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy.

The vulnerability of the square formation doesn't become a real hindrance until the advent of light field artillery, which can be moved into position and fired directly onto the tight-packed, advancing squares. That's part of what made the shift to thin lines desirable; and so by the Napoleonic era, maneuvering from a line to a square formation is a dicey concern.

Th Scots at Falkirk in 1298 held off cavalry but were devastated by archery, as were the Welsh spearmen at Maes Moydog in 1295.

Combined arms works nicely, but that's not the argument. the argument is that against tight formations, rapid longbow fire is plenty accurate enough, and if the target is packed, lightly armed infantry, they can be annihilated by archery.