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

[Galloglaich]

I'm fairly certain I'm not.

I do get what you are saying, but I disagree.

Yes, there's a difference between projectiles, but it's not as extreme as is being made out here. Everything arcs. The more velocity you put on the round, and the more aeordynamic it is, the further it will fly before it hits the ground, but at 50 yards, a longbow or crossbow would shoot fairly flat and at 300 yards both would need to fire very high and arc the shot.

At 300 yards, yes, the question is some where in between, say about 100 yards or 150 yards.

Muskets were often fired at a high angle for distance fire. I don't think bows were ever fired higher than a forty five degree angle.

Do you think Muskets ever were fired at a 45 degree angle? Or a 30 degree angle?

I think somewhere there is a blind spot., where bolts fly straight as an arrow (ha!) for a hundred yards then fall to earth, while arrows must be arced to fly 50 yards. This is ridiculous.

Certainly. It's not what I was suggesting though. I'm saying basically that bows shot strait for some distance, you could say 50 yards, beyond that they were increasingly arced. Crossbows shot strait a little further, maybe it's 150 yards, maybe some other number. This is what Delbruck, Williams, and other experts seem to be saying based on the old documents. But the old documents could be wrong or misinterpreted.

For similar draw weights at similar ranges, I don't think we're talking "aim at his head, or aim at Venus to hit him in the chest" I think we're talking "aim at his head, or aim a foot over his head."

But they aren't similar draw weights. That is one key point you are apparently missing. A 1200 lbs draw crossbow is potentially stronger (initially) than a 125 lb bow. Precisely how much stronger we don't know yet because the data isn't available.

I refuse to believe that with battlefield weapons, say an English Longbowman at Agincourt versus a Genoese crossbowman of the same era, that there is any range at which the archer would have to drop the arrow on your head while the crossbowman could shoot it straight into your chest.

I currently believe the opposite, but if data emerges to prove me wrong, (or even, substantially indicate that I'm wrong) I'll change my mind again. :)

G.

[Deadmeat.GW]

I must admit that I becoming somewhat skeptical of the effective ranges being mentioned.



Wasn't it also a rather large siege crossbow?



A few points:
1. Most of the sources I've read have claimed that past 100 or 150 yards the bolt had last enough energy that it couldn't be expected to pierce armor, but would still be effective against unarmored foes (or for that matter the unarmored portions of them).

2. If the Swiss were shooting people accurately at over 300 yards on the battlefield, then they had the effectiveness of rifle muskets. That's a pretty serious claim, and there should be a noticeable increase in casualties, especially given the typically slow moving mass formations of the day. There should also be some reaction to this evident in changing tactics (much like the French focused on more rapid movements, when rifle muskets were introduced).

3. The Swiss used meters in the Middle Ages? :-) Seriously though, you shouldn't take the measurements given too much credence. There were a variety of different yards, feet, ells, etc., in use all over Europe. Most period sources I know use the term "paces" which can be roughly acquired by counting your steps as you walk, and is typically around 2.5 feet. [Care must be taken however: the Roman pace was the distance a single foot traveled, or two steps, and was close to 5 feet]. Paces are often equated with yards, which are often equated with meters. My point is when dealing with period sources you should take these ranges as very rough.

I don't disagree with most of what you have to say, its just these ranges (which seem to be getting longer and longer as the conversation develops) that make me suspicious. Just because they started firing at longer ranges, doesn't mean the fire was terribly effective. I believe during the Napoleonic Wars there was some battle in Spain, where an Army Corps(!) volleyed at 1,000 yards! It was probably intended more as a show of coordination and drill, than to produce mass casualties. Likewise, if only a few bolts are finding their targets at 300 yards, that could be disconcerting to the receiving end. And if your bolts are plentiful, why not try for some long range shots? During the American Civil War, some commanders felt that fire over 100 yards wasn't effectual, but that it helped calm the troops' (i.e. the ones shooting) nerves.

The reason I used meters is that they had a different 'yard' then the rest of the regions around them which was closer to the meter then the English yard.

As for the shooting at that range, they did indeed have crossbowmen who would be accurate at that range in hitting single targets.

However you need to keep in mind the terrain they fought in, hilley, forested and so on.
Oft quite outnumbered also.

To even the odds they learned to shoot at individuals at the range of 300 'yards' for the pure crossbowmen.
The trained specialists.

The non-specialists made a far worse showing, from what I could see they made a good shot if they hit a single target at 80 yards and the trained specialists often remarked upon this lack of skill with derogatory remarks.
So, militia with crossbows, 80 yards...

Specialist crossbowmen who did nothing but that...300yards.

Heck, I am sure any military or ex-military person can happily say the same thing about sunday shooters and they happiness at hitting a stationary target at 50 meters, most of the time...with a rifle.

[WarKitty]

Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.

[Mike_G]

At 300 yards, yes, the question is some where in between, say about 100 yards or 150 yards.

150 yards is way too far for a straight shot from anything that doesn't eject brass. Between 50 and a hundred I might believe, but I think I need to see a crossbow leveled at a target a football field and a half away and not dig up turf .

Do you think Muskets ever were fired at a 45 degree angle? Or a 30 degree angle?

Yes. At least 30 degrees. I've seen referrences to the drill command "Elevate" given to musketeers engaging troops at long range.

Look at the long range leaf sights on older rifles. Look at how elevated the barrel has to be to line up the rear sight and front sight. And those are much flatter shooting than muskets.

Bullets drop quickly, especially spherical, relatively low velocity musket balls. I doubt you could level the weapon and hit a guy above the knees at a hundred yards.

Certainly. It's not what I was suggesting though. I'm saying basically that bows shot strait for some distance, you could say 50 yards, beyond that they were increasingly arced. Crossbows shot strait a little further, maybe it's 150 yards, maybe some other number. This is what Delbruck, Williams, and other experts seem to be saying based on the old documents. But the old documents could be wrong or misinterpreted.



But they aren't similar draw weights. That is one key point you are apparently missing. A 1200 lbs draw crossbow is potentially stronger (initially) than a 125 lb bow. Precisely how much stronger we don't know yet because the data isn't available.

First, we need to make sure we aren't comparing Schroedinger's Crossbow, where we use siege bows when we want stats that favor power and light crossbows when we want to compare rate of fire and specially made hunting crossbows when we want to compare accuracy.

I doubt the Genoese were carrying boiws with a 1200 lb draw.

And if they were, the draw length is much shorter, imparting power to the bolt over less distance, which reduces overall "oomph."

I currently believe the opposite, but if data emerges to prove me wrong, (or even, substantially indicate that I'm wrong) I'll change my mind again. :)

G.

Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.

[Matthew]

Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.

Probably 5-7 feet. Longer spears certainly existed, such as for ship to ship fighting in the Illiad, and Hoplite spears got longer, perhaps as much as 9' (or perhaps even more, though that would be unwieldy in one hand) before making the transition to the prototype for the sarissa, which ranged anywhere from 18-24', though more usually 18-21'. The "standard" one-handed infantry spear, though, ranges most often around 5-7 feet, as far as I am aware.

[fusilier]

@Deadmeat.GW
Ok, I would believe that the professionals (if that's the right word to use for them), would have more experience with long range shooting. And if you adapted meters as the closest measurement to whichever was originally quoted that's fine. I'm still a bit skeptical, as there could be exaggeration (both intentional and unintentional), and my impression is that they didn't seem to care too much about precise measurements at the time. Early tables of cannon ranges, typically given as point-blank and max, must be treated with much suspicion, and reflect general opinions rather than any realistic measurements (almost invariably they show culverins as shooting farther than cannons, for instance).

@Mike_G
A 1200lbs crossbow would have been rare, but based on the discussion here, 400-800 lbs probably were fairly common? That's still quite a bit more than the heaviest of longbows (and for that matter, it's probably safe to assume that most longbows had a draw weight of less than 125lbs?). The shorter bow is also more efficient in transferring energy to the arrow/bolt.

Holding a musket at 30 degrees would be pretty strange. However, I think most people would be surprised by the amount of elevation used on a rifle-musket --> maybe about 10+ degrees (which doesn't sound like much, but it is). My Carcano has volley sights that go out to 2000 meters! With a very stable, but less aerodynamic, roundnose bullet, it's a pretty steep angle. It's also different to aim, because your face is nowhere near the stock at that point.

[Brainfart]

Ohhhkaaaay. I didn't think I had to spell out everything from basic axioms, as I assumed a certain degree of interpretive intelligence in the reader-base here.

Hey, when you state something like that without anything to qualify it, don't be surprised when people offer corrections.

MORE weight perhaps. But it's not 80/20 is it? A lot of people don't really think enough about where their weight is, and where this stops them moving. You need to be able to move and change direction, and you can't do that while practically hopping on your front foot: Which I've seen inexperienced shield fighters do an awful lot.

Pretty close, actually. It depends on the instructor. Mine (and his) advocate a 70/30 split in longsword and sword & buckler, though I've seen other groups do a 60/40 split.

There's rear-weighted stances too, of course, but they're used only in conjunction with certain guards or actions. A rear-weighted stance lengthens the time necessary to perform any offensive action from out of measure.

I'm not seeing how the advice for equal weight distribution helps you to your intended objective.

When you do a forward passing step, it's your rear leg that needs to transfer weight to your lead leg. A lightly loaded rear leg allows you to step forwards faster. It might slow down a rearward passing step a tiny amount if the person is unused to quick weight transfer, but it's nothing that can't be overcome with practice.

I've been fighting for close to 10 years.

Just out of curiosity, what martial arts did you practice in that time?

Void always trumps shield. That doesn't mean always rely on the void and not use the shield, but it does mean to prioritize your stance and body weight distribution so you can.

And every fighting style I've ever seen which places more weight on a lead foot, I've had the habit slapped out of me by the next guy. So I take it with a grain of salt that group X teaches such a stance and not group Y.

As for moving forward quickly, you want a balanced stance, not a lead leg heavy stance. But that's just me stating the obvious.

Like I said to Psyx above, I'm not seeing how an equal weight distribution gets you what you want.

[Yora]

Why are we still talking Bow vs. Crossbow after seven days, when at no point there was a disagreement that they are both good weapons and bows might get better results if the shooter is really well trained?

[Psyx]

but by around 80 meters they could aim point blank.

But they can't. There's at least a yard of drop at that range, assuming a very generous velocity for the crossbow and that the laws of physics still apply.

Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.

I would need evidence that the shot wasn't being made on the moon. Firing bolts at half the speed of sound, with no drop off in velocity, our crossbowman would be firing 8m above the target point at that range. That is not a 'straight shot'.

We keep hearing 'arrows aren't as accurate because they fire in a steeper arc'. I've only got my own experiences with 40mm and cricket balls to go on; but it really doesn't take much practice to be able to place either one pretty darned accurately out to a considerable distance. Quarterbacks manage to do ok, too.
Yes: The crossbow has a flatter trajectory, but it's not going to make a huge amount of difference to the accuracy in the hands of a trained man at shorter ranges. At longer ranges the crossbow's advantage of higher initial velocity is gone, and the drop-off is going to be steeper than the arrow's.

Not that any of that matters anyway when you're putting shots into a clump of men; which is essentially the goal here. What counts there is simply the chance of each chance delivering a disabling blow, multiplied by shots fired.

I refuse to believe that with battlefield weapons, say an English Longbowman at Agincourt versus a Genoese crossbowman of the same era, that there is any range at which the archer would have to drop the arrow on your head while the crossbowman could shoot it straight into your chest.

Concur.
We don't need much in the way of tests: Simply apply some velocity formula and acceleration due to gravity on the back of a cigarette packet. Both arc. Arrows arc more (hence the whole 'archery' thing!), but the shooter is always going to have to compensate. I'd -personally- rather compensate 50% more with projectiles that are more stable and retain more killing power at those ranges.

To even the odds they learned to shoot at individuals at the range of 300 'yards' for the pure crossbowmen. The trained specialists.
The non-specialists made a far worse showing...

This sounds... right. A non-trained shooter aiming one 'height' above a target and hitting... fair cop. Trained marksmen putting off shots at 30 or more degrees... fair enough. And for just this reason, I don't see that trained longbow men would suffer with inaccuracy at extreme range more than a crossbowman: If you can fire accurately at 30-40 degrees, you can do it at 45.

Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.

For formation combat or individual? Around or a foot more than the person using it is a good rule of thumb for an individual spear. Whatever feels right!

The shorter bow is also more efficient in transferring energy to the arrow/bolt.

I rather thought that crossbows were far LESS efficient...?

Pretty close, actually. It depends on the instructor. Mine (and his) advocate a 70/30 split in longsword and sword & buckler

That's an awful lot. That rings all kind of alarm bells with me.
There is no point planting that much weight on one foot, as it adds nothing.

Like I said to Psyx above, I'm not seeing how an equal weight distribution gets you what you want.

It allows you to move in either direction. Fast.
Good footwork and weight distribution in martial arts - like dancing - is absolutely crucial. Moving forward is good in that it might allow you to get in a strike. But being able to quickly move back means that you are very likely to be able to void a blow.
Which to me means that I'd like to be able to do either, but I certainly want to be able to move back, because not getting killed is ultimately the primary objective - not killing the other guy.

[Galloglaich]

@Mike_G
A 1200lbs crossbow would have been rare, but based on the discussion here, 400-800 lbs probably were fairly common?

Not according to my sources, including the one which Matthew linked to above on the Teutonic Order in Prussia, which states that the stirrup crossbows were 150 kg draw and the cranequin crossbows were 500 kg draw.

It all depends what time period you are referring to but in the 15th Century I do not think the 500 kg crossbows were any more rare than the 120 lb draw longbows.

From the source:

In the fifteenth century, to compete with the longbow and the emerging use of firearms, the crossbow was equipped with a powerful steel bow, with the help of which the draw-weight increased to up to 500 kg. In the case of the stirrup crossbow with a horn bow, the draw-weight was up to 150 kg.107 The strong steel bows could be drawn only with the special help of mechanical devices such as a windlass (the so-called 'English winder') or the ratchet winder (the so-called 'German winder' or cranequin). Even after 1450, the crossbow was in no way inferior to hand-held firearms, and it was also used as a weapon of war in the sixteenth century.

It's a funny coincidence this guy apparently has the same bias that I do (especially when by the end of the article he's quoting the same pro-longbow propaganda everyone here is.)

Look, here is where I find this disparagement of the crossbow suspicious. It's really pretty simple. In order to believe the crossbow was vastly inferior to the longbow, you really have to assume that these people were stupid. I'm suspicious of such theories in general because they have repeatedly proven to be incorrect.

If you look at say, the Teutonic Order. They had access to the longbow, they had plenty of money. English Crusaders joined forces with the Order on numerous Crusades throughout the Middle Ages and there were strong direct trade links between the Baltic and England (and Scotland). In fact, many towns in the Baltic had sizable English populations, notably the town of Elbing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbl%C4...nseatic_Elbing

The city of Danzig fought a trade war against England in the late 15th Century (and won, incidentally)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Hanseatic_War

More to the point, they DEFINITELY had plenty of access to powerful recurves of the Mongol and Turkish types. At the risk of opening yet another can of worms, from everything I've read these recurves were just as powerful as longbows. So why didn't they adopt them, or, if you assume that it really did take 20 years to learn to shoot one, why didn't they hire plenty of Tartar or Turkish auxiliaries as archers instead of importing crossbowmen from as far away as Switzerland and Genoa?

They actually did this (with the so-called Turcopoles) in the Crusader Kingdoms in the Mediterranean, but these were eventually replaced by crossbows. Tartar mercenaries were available in the Baltic and were used by all sides, but again, were replaced by crossbowmen.

Was this due to stupidity? Perhaps. I won't rule it out. But experience tells me probably not.

In the long run, we'll see. Some people may not need or want to see data and think everything can be sussed out on the back of a pack of cigarettes but I think actually putting the kit together and trying it out will often give us surprising results. It wouldn't be the first time.

G.

[Caustic Soda]

When modern test results are published (hopefully complete with some nice videos) we can put this to rest, just like so many of the other hot internet debates on medieval weaponry were put to rest: on riveted vs. butted mail, on longbows vs. armor, on European swords being inferior to katanas etc.

G.

Riveted versus butted mail? I think I missed that one. what was it all about? and what did the test results show?

I've seen more of the others than I care for, but that one seems to have gone over my head entirely.

[Psyx]

Some people may not need or want to see data and think everything can be sussed out on the back of a pack of cigarettes

Was that a dig? I'm not saying that a crossbow is a piece of junk. Soldiers don't use bad weapons for several hundred years if they have another available choice.

I'm just saying that it takes about 30 seconds to figure out that the notion that crossbows can magically shoot straight and level for 80m is patiently absurd. As is the idea that they would be shooting anything like straight at greater ranges. In the hands of a skilled user, warbows are not at some massive accuracy disadvantage.

Maybe instead of taking the word of other sources and regurgitating them, we should apply some high-school physics and elementary grade common sense to the problem. Call me a product of the modern eduction system, but I prefer using a bit of science to automatically believing everything an old book tells me.




Interestingly, when looking for some crossbow velocities; these two links came up first:

http://www.huntersfriend.com/product...rformance.html
http://www.hunting-fishing-gear.com/...play/1737.html

There's a couple of interesting comments regarding range, trajectory and velocity buried in the text.

[Spiryt]

Riveted versus butted mail? I think I missed that one. what was it all about? and what did the test results show?

I've seen more of the others than I care for, but that one seems to have gone over my head entirely.

Virtually all rings of mail ever encountered were connected with each other with rivets.



Most prevalent construction was rows of solidly shut, uniform links, alternating with rows of riveted rings.

While today, of course, with lack of tools, time, skill, smithy, or whatever, people who want to have something that resembles mail, take some metal rings and butt them together.

From whatever reason, some people "test" such stuff against different weapons - results are obvious, such "mail" falls apart quickly in the best case.

That's pretty much it.

[Galloglaich]

Was that a dig? I'm not saying that a crossbow is a piece of junk. Soldiers don't use bad weapons for several hundred years if they have another available choice.

It's not a dig, it's a disagreeement. (and i would have mentioned you by name but I didn't remember who had said that and didn't have time to look it up) I don't think you can figure everything out in advance because you don't always know all the variables. Thus we have been surprised by things like how effective armor was or how much swords really weighed.

I'm just saying that it takes about 30 seconds to figure out that the notion that crossbows can magically shoot straight and level for 80m is patiently absurd. As is the idea that they would be shooting anything like straight at greater ranges. In the hands of a skilled user, warbows are not at some massive accuracy disadvantage.

I think you mean patently. And I also think you and Mike G. are mischaracterising my argument. I'm obviously not claiming that crrossbows shot as straight as a laser. Subjectively at some point, something is more or less a straight shot (shall we say, up to a 10 degree elevation ?) and something is more of an arcing / curved / indirect shot (45 degrees?). I think you know what I mean though just don't like the data.

Maybe instead of taking the word of other sources and regurgitating them, we should apply some high-school physics and elementary grade common sense to the problem. Call me a product of the modern eduction system, but I prefer using a bit of science to automatically believing everything an old book tells me.

Literary records are evidence, they are not definitive evidence, but they are evidence. Do you really think people were lying about how they used weapons in period? I don't share the contempt for "old books" that you apaprently do, though I don't take them as gospel either. Ultimately the bottom line for me comes from modern testing like has been done with so many other weapons and armor such as at the Royal Armouries at Leeds.

But that said, the physics cited upthread a little seems to support what I was saying, a higher initial velocity and higher weight means a more sudden drop off in energy for the crossbow, better aerodynamics and lower initial velocity means a better 'ballistic' performance by an arrow. The people in period felt that what they considered a straight shot (which may actually be 5, 10, who knows may be 15 degrees of elevation) was capable of hitting targets up to 80 meters or 150 meters or whatever, and they clearly distinguished that from 'indirect' shots up to 300 meters.

Interestingly, when looking for some crossbow velocities; these two links came up first:

http://www.huntersfriend.com/product...rformance.html
http://www.hunting-fishing-gear.com/...play/1737.html

There's a couple of interesting comments regarding range, trajectory and velocity buried in the text.

Interesting comments and numbers regarding modern hunting crossbows, I didn't see any data on weapons in the ballpark of 15th Century military crossbows. Which isn't surprising because they don't make anything 1/4 that powerful any more since you don't need it for hunting, and they are dangerous. Crossbows of that kind of power have to be tested at a rifle range.

I've seen stats on modern crossbows in the 250 lb draw range which had up to 185 fps. I can only speculate on what a 1200 lb draw weapon would be but I don't think it would be a direct correlation. You might see up to say 250 fps or maybe as high as 300 fps, but there are a lot of other variables like the type of string, the length of the stroke, the different behavior of compound (pully) prods vs. strait prods, the shape, weight and length of the bolt (the old ones being much shorter and fatter). It's beyond me to measure all of these factors, which is why I'm impatient for a real test.

But a few replicas have been made and we will see tests eventually, maybe this summer.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Virtually all rings of mail ever encountered were connected with each other with rivets.



Most prevalent construction was rows of solidly shut, uniform links, alternating with rows of riveted rings.

While today, of course, with lack of tools, time, skill, smithy, or whatever, people who want to have something that resembles mail, take some metal rings and butt them together.

From whatever reason, some people "test" such stuff against different weapons - results are obvious, such "mail" falls apart quickly in the best case.

That's pretty much it.

But the controversy was that people thought, because "butted mail" is very common at Renaissance Faires, surely it should have been common in Ye Olden Days. Even recently the RPG book "From Stone to Steel" claimed that riveted mail was rarely used due to being too stiff, and butted mail still shows up (more or less randomly) on lowbrow shows like 'Deadliest Warrior'.

A big internet flame war over this issue in the 90's was settled a few years ago when definititve studies were published showing almost all the mail armor which has been recovered in Europe and the Middle East before the 19th Century was either riveted or solid or welded (the vast majority being riveted or alternating riveted / solid links). Some really old, badly rusted examples they originally thought were butted turned out to be riveted when they looked at them with x-rays.

G.

[Brainfart]

That's an awful lot. That rings all kind of alarm bells with me.
There is no point planting that much weight on one foot, as it adds nothing.

Really? Most of the interpretations of European sword arts that I've seen tend to place the majority of their weight on one foot. What you're saying might be true in an unarmed context (I wouldn't know), but you're going to need a heck of a lot more evidence to convince me that placing more weight on one leg adds nothing.

It allows you to move in either direction. Fast.
Good footwork and weight distribution in martial arts - like dancing - is absolutely crucial. Moving forward is good in that it might allow you to get in a strike. But being able to quickly move back means that you are very likely to be able to void a blow.
Which to me means that I'd like to be able to do either, but I certainly want to be able to move back, because not getting killed is ultimately the primary objective - not killing the other guy.

What's considered to be good is relative. Being able to move quickly in every direction is important, yes, but placing that much weight on one foot doesn't impede this. How exactly does it affect mobility negatively?

There's more than one way to void a blow as well. You can get the heck off the line by stepping to either side. You can step diagonally relative to your opponent, which will allow you to void while allowing you to stay in an appropriate distance to counterattack. Stepping backwards is probably the worst option unless you're already sure that the other fellow has completely misjudged the distance between you two.

[Psyx]

What's considered to be good is relative. Being able to move quickly in every direction is important, yes, but placing that much weight on one foot doesn't impede this. How exactly does it affect mobility negatively?

Because you must weight shift prior to moving that leg. You absolutely cannot move your foot if 70% of your weight is on it.
That's before we address balance issues: You might not be fighting on a nice mat, and slipping with that much weight on the foot will have unpleasant consequences. You simply don't want to gamble your life that the grass under your feet isn't slippery. The importance of solid footwork is often missed by people who practice indoors all the while. Do you think that 70/30 is honestly a good idea when standing on a muddy, grassy field, slick with blood and rain, with threats in every direction?
And you're also a lot easier to trip; although that is less important in armed combat.
Finally and somewhat importantly, blatantly having weight on one foot is quite obvious, which means your partner automatically can reduce the possible number of things that you can do to him by degree.

'Interpreted' Western arts are just that: We have a bunch of pictures from 600 years ago and a lot of guesswork, with often very little said about footwork. There's a lot of lessons to be learned from fighting arts that didn't die out, and those arts invariably stress balanced footwork. There is no magical reason why Western arts should throw out every lesson taught in other cultures - it simply makes no sense.

You can get the heck off the line by stepping to either side.

And if your weight is on one foot, you have no option but to move the other one first or waste time weight shifting.

[Galloglaich]

First, we need to make sure we aren't comparing Schroedinger's Crossbow, where we use siege bows when we want stats that favor power and light crossbows when we want to compare rate of fire and specially made hunting crossbows when we want to compare accuracy.

I obvously don't agree with the implication that I'm cherry picking numbers, but I will concede this, there were many different types of crossbows in period and they do get pretty confusing. I've found at least 5 distinct types of military crossbows widely used in Europe already. Here is what I've identified so far:

MILITARY CROSSBOWS

Simple yew prod crossbow aka Knüttelarmbrüste used from at least the 12th Century through the 16th. Marginally capable as a military weapon, similar to a modern hunting crossbow. This is the weapon which is usually compared to a longbow.
Composite prod stirrup crossbow aka 'Steigbügelarmbrust' . spanned with a stirrup, made of wood bow reinforced with baleen and / or sturgeon 'horns'. Later (stronger) composite prods were made uses goat foot ('Geissfuss')or belt-hook to span. made of wood, sinew, rams horn, bull horn, and other materials. Up to 150 KG draw.
Windlass siege crossbow "english winder", large powerful composite prod crossbow but very slow to span with a cord and pully 'Seilrolle' or Windlass 'Winde', popular in the 14th Century for seige warfare, gradually discontinued in the early 15th century. 300-500 KG draw.
Heavy composite arbalest. Small. Usable from horseback. Spanned with cranequin. Better in winter than steel prod. 300-400 KG draw (possibly more powerful in winter time).
Steel prod arbalest uses cranequin aka "German winder" small. Usable from horseback. 500 KG draw.
Gastrophetes / Scorpion old fashioned Greek 'Belly bow' used by Byzantine Ballistiari through the 14th Century.
Repeating Crossbow used by Chinese but also known in Europe. Shoots very light bolt with no fletchings, usually used with poison. Used through the 19th Century.

HUNTING CROSSBOWS

Skåne Lockbow - very light crossbow for small game, of a type found in Denmark.
Slurbow - shoots bullets or clay pellets.
Hunting arbalest cranequin spanned steel prod arbalest similar to the military version, remained in use for hunting into the 18th Century (these are mostly what have survived)

SPECIALIST

Ballisteri very small 'pistol' crossbow. Uses a screw to span. Either an expensive toy or an assassins weapon.

I doubt the Genoese were carrying boiws with a 1200 lb draw.

Why?

And if they were, the draw length is much shorter, imparting power to the bolt over less distance, which reduces overall "oomph."

Draw length is one of many factors, isn't it.

Drawing on what I've read, and what I've shot, I need to be persuaded that there were crossbowmen making 200 yard, flat shots and hitting individuals. Not everyone can do that with a modern rifle.

You have to be able to do that with a modern rifle if you expect to get out of boot camp. Even in the Marines

G.

[Galloglaich]

apparently the English Longbows were tried by the Teutonic order:

When, in the summer of 1390, Bolingbroke was preparing for his journey to Prussia he had, among other things, eighty longbows costing one shilling each and six broadbows, each at double the price, purchased for him.95 They were packed in hemp, tied up with straps made from Hungarian leather and provided with a lock. In addition, there were four bundles of broad arrows. Perhaps the wood for these bows came from Prussia, as the tough and elastic yew wood was an important article of export of the Ordensstaat. Thus, in the year 1396 the commander of Ragnit deposited no less than 7,600 unworked wooden pieces for bows (ywenbogenholcz) and 1,150 of the same for crossbows (knottelholcz) with a Danzig citizen on the Grand Master's behalf.96 We also know that Bolingbroke's bows were used in action because in a description of the siege of Vilnius (Lithuania) in autumn 1390 the Knights' chronicler, Posilge, writes: 'Also the Lord of Lancaster from England was there; he had many fine archers, who did much good'.97 The impression is that Posilge was very impressed by the effectiveness of the English longbows.
The Teutonic Order had, from the very beginning, preferred the crossbow to the ordinary bow. The oldest recorded use of the European crossbow dates from the fourth century AD, and one comes across them again in the tenth.98 During the First Crusade the crossbow was in general use. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries important improvements were made which led to the further spread of this weapon. The trigger, the notch for the bolt, the nut and its socket, and the stirrup were introduced, and these were only some of the changes made. The stirrup was fixed to the stock and served for spanning the bow. Already in the statutes of the Teutonic Order there was mention of the workshop in which the crossbows with stirrups (as well as bows) were produced: 'Marschalus potest accipere de domo balistarum minores balistas aptas pedibus ad trahendum et arcus pro fratribus, quibus sive balistas sive arcus viderit expedire'.99

They were impressed, but evidently they preferred the Crossbow.

G.

[SigCorps]

While I am no where near an expert on arms and equipment from history. I have had expience with the modern rifle. We regularly trained to shoot out to 300 meters with the M16A2 and over 400 meters with the M249 SAW.

At 300 meters you still aim center mass on the target with the rifle. So any compensation for distance is negligible on a modern rifle.

[Shademan]

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewto...f2b2637b63b589

crossbows

[Mike_G]

While I am no where near an expert on arms and equipment from history. I have had expience with the modern rifle. We regularly trained to shoot out to 300 meters with the M16A2 and over 400 meters with the M249 SAW.

At 300 meters you still aim center mass on the target with the rifle. So any compensation for distance is negligible on a modern rifle.

One assumes you set the elevation knob on the rear sight assembly differently for 300 meters than you would for 200, or 500. If you set your windage and elevation, your point of aim is still center mass, but the rifle is actually angled differently.

At PI we shot 200, 300 and 500 yards (meters are for foreigners) known distance, adjusting our sights in reaction to where our shots were spotted. This is for your qual score, and to get familiar with the way the rifle works, so spending three weeks on you belly with a support sling strangling your left arm and a makrsmanship notebook beside you, you learn to shoot.

In an unknown distance situation, where targets could be at any range (like combat), you can set your battlesight zero for 300 yards, and if you aim center mass you may hit a closer guy in the head and a more distant one in the leg, but for miltary purposes that's fine. It doesn't mean the shot isn't arcing. Back in the day, when bows or muskets had a much less flat trajectory than .223 ammo, the leaders would estimate range to a target, usually an enemy formation, not a skinny third world teenager with an AK running from cover to cover, and the fring unit would adjust sights or elvate as per drill.

But the fact stand that all projectile motion is a parabolic arc. I'm not in any way saying either the crossbow or longbow was a bad weapon, but I would be suprised if the arc for those two weapons were all that different (like, arrows landing on your kettle hat while the bolts hit you in the belt buckle different), comapring battlefield versions of each.

[SigCorps]

While yes you set your battle site zero to 300 meters as we did in the Army, the compensation you are talking about on a modern rifle is miniscule to that of what you weould need for a bow, or crossbow.

We shot at targets that ranged from 25 to 300 meters with the M16 , I never had an issue hitting center mass with my sights set to 300. Even with the M249 set to 300 hitting the 400 meter targets was done with little to no compensation.

[MarkusWolfe]

Quick question - about how long would an infantry spear be? I'm thinking a bronze age to early iron age spear designed for thrusting in close range.

Ones used with a larger shield would be 5-7 feet, while the ones used with smaller shields or without any shields would go up to 9 feet. Also bear in mind the different kinds of spearheads and their effects (broad spearheads don't penetrate very deeply and are ineffective against armor but can be pulled out quickly, while narrow spearheads have the opposite effect.)

[Psyx]

So any compensation for distance is negligible on a modern rifle.

Tell that to a sniper. They'll smile and tell you that's why you aren't a sniper...

The rounds drop less at a given distance because they are travelling at least five times faster than the fastest bolt. Any projectile not generating lift will drop 16 feet in a second. Now with a 'primitive' weapon that second might only get you a hundred yards or so of range, whereas with a 5.56mm NATO round, that second will get you 1000m of range.

[MarkusWolfe]

But the controversy was that people thought, because "butted mail" is very common at Renaissance Faires, surely it should have been common in Ye Olden Days. Even recently the RPG book "From Stone to Steel" claimed that riveted mail was rarely used due to being too stiff, and butted mail still shows up (more or less randomly) on lowbrow shows like 'Deadliest Warrior'.

A big internet flame war over this issue in the 90's was settled a few years ago when definititve studies were published showing almost all the mail armor which has been recovered in Europe and the Middle East before the 19th Century was either riveted or solid or welded (the vast majority being riveted or alternating riveted / solid links). Some really old, badly rusted examples they originally thought were butted turned out to be riveted when they looked at them with x-rays.

G.

I'm signed up at Spike.com. Could you give me some links so I can prove to the other fans that riveted was common in the medieval era compared to butted?

[Psyx]

^It's kind of common sense, too.

Mail was expensive stuff as it takes AGES to make, and metal was often expensive too. The kind of people who could afford mail could afford the extra labour costs for the same material costs and armour that was far more effective, and didn't fall apart.

[Spiryt]

Not to mention that especially in less "civilized" areas of Dark Ages, 25 pounds of suitable iron was usually true FORTUNE.

Making butted mail out of it would be somehow like using Ferrari 599 as a tractor.

Not to mention that they wanted to live. That's was point of armor.


Here is decent article anyway.

[Mike_G]

While yes you set your battle site zero to 300 meters as we did in the Army, the compensation you are talking about on a modern rifle is miniscule to that of what you weould need for a bow, or crossbow.

That's been more or less exactly my point.

But it's still a turn of the dial to raise the rear sight assembly. Even at high velocity, the round is dropping, and will hit the guy at 200 yards higher up on the body than the guy at 300 yard.

With a corssbow, we are talking orders of magnitude less velocity than a 5.56 mm round. We're talking a proijectile that's a ton heavier, less dense,a dn more subject to all manner of factors that will throw off the accuracy.

Thus, I doubt that it "shot flat" out to 150 yard. I just don't really believe that.

We shot at targets that ranged from 25 to 300 meters with the M16 , I never had an issue hitting center mass with my sights set to 300. Even with the M249 set to 300 hitting the 400 meter targets was done with little to no compensation.

And that's probably fine for a man sized target standing in the open. If you aim at his belly button, you can hit two feet high or two feet low and still ruin his day. If you are aiming at a head above the lip of a fighting hole, you may want to adjust that rear sight.

[Galloglaich]

I'm signed up at Spike.com. Could you give me some links so I can prove to the other fans that riveted was common in the medieval era compared to butted?

Dan Howards article on mail is pretty good and he does mention this specifically.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

Eric Schmid's "Mail Research Society" is probably the most definitive single source in the world on mail specifically. They will answer questions if you email them.

Royal Armoury at Leeds is also a good source, you can get email answers from them.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/visit-us/leeds

G.