Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Conners]

That's quite likely. People are used to the idea that if someone is bigger and bulkier than them, that guy will win if it comes to blows. People rarely consider how much a knife can change that equation.

[fusilier]

Returning to the discussion of Roman style infantry in the Renaissance --

I just stumbled across an Italian blog, a magazine article apparently, about the battle of Piombino 1448. My Italian is no where near good enough but using google translate, the author describes the kind of infantry used during the battle, including "Lanciotti" who used a small shield and one or two throwing javelins, armed and using tactics reminiscent of Roman velites -- says the author.

Most interesting, he seems to be claiming that the infantry didn't fight in neat formations, instead they mixed all the infantry together! The front rank would be pikemen(!), and then all the other troop kinds would just be mixed in behind them: pavesieri (shield bearers), "lanciotti", more pikemen, crossbowmen, and schiopettieri (handgunners). They just kind of muddled in apparently, without forming neat ranks. My suspicion is that they may have had a rank structure initially but it fell apart on contact. What I'm most surprised by is that the shield-bearers were not at the front! At least not initially. Not sure if it's being interpreted correctly though.

Maybe someone who knows Italian can give a better understanding?
http://stemmieimprese.it/2012/09/17/...1448/#more-762

Some nice pictures on this guys blog. He appears to have published some books on specific Italian battles in the 15th and 16th centuries.

[Galloglaich]

I think that is basically it. People really underestimate how counter-intuitive, tricky, and just different fighting with weapons really is, at least when one or more of the combatants has some real martial arts training.

Though as you say, even unarmed, a guy who spent a couple of years on the high school wrestling team, or a good boxer, can turn the tables on a bigger stronger guy who lacks that kind of skill. You saw this clearly enough in the early days of UFC. A big guy getting a broken nose can get slowed down quick, (or if he gets his knees clipped or whatever). I've seen that happen.

It isn't necessarily the big guy who has the most strength either, little guys can show extraordinary energy sometimes, testosterone, adrenaline or whatever. Morale is a critical factor which is also ignored in almost all genre lit and games, for whatever reason. I think that is actually the biggest challenge in a fight.

G

[Galloglaich]

Returning to the discussion of Roman style infantry in the Renaissance --

I just stumbled across an Italian blog, a magazine article apparently, about the battle of Piombino 1448. My Italian is no where near good enough but using google translate, the author describes the kind of infantry used during the battle, including "Lanciotti" who used a small shield and one or two throwing javelins, armed and using tactics reminiscent of Roman velites -- says the author.

Most interesting, he seems to be claiming that the infantry didn't fight in neat formations, instead they mixed all the infantry together! The front rank would be pikemen(!), and then all the other troop kinds would just be mixed in behind them: pavesieri (shield bearers), "lanciotti", more pikemen, crossbowmen, and schiopettieri (handgunners). They just kind of muddled in apparently, without forming neat ranks. My suspicion is that they may have had a rank structure initially but it fell apart on contact. What I'm most surprised by is that the shield-bearers were not at the front! At least not initially. Not sure if it's being interpreted correctly though.

Maybe someone who knows Italian can give a better understanding?
http://stemmieimprese.it/2012/09/17/...1448/#more-762

Some nice pictures on this guys blog. He appears to have published some books on specific Italian battles in the 15th and 16th centuries.

In the Italian militia armies, the 'shield bearers' used to typically stick with the crossbowmen or gunners, but I think more in an earlier era. The 'Velites' types of troops are also seen among the Almogavars in the 14th Century, I suspect in one form or another this remained something of a constant.

"aur aur! The Iron Awakes!"

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

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

G

[fusilier]

In the Italian militia armies, the 'shield bearers' used to typically stick with the crossbowmen or gunners, but I think more in an earlier era. The 'Velites' types of troops are also seen among the Almogavars in the 14th Century, I suspect in one form or another this remained something of a constant.

"aur aur! The Iron Awakes!"

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

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

G

I should have noted that there is a picture with the text that shows two infantry units coming into hand-to-hand contact -- so the context is of hand-to-hand and not ranged missile warfare. By mixing the different infantry together, it would probably allow missile weapons to still be used in the midst of a melee -- at least with a lesser chance of hitting friendly troops than being some distance off from the combat and firing en masse into it.

Certainly the "shield bearers" were to be used in conjunction with other forces. At the battle of Crecy the Genoese crossbowmen were apparently ordered to advance before the pavises had been brought forward. But, I've never been too clear on how the varied troop types operated together. Many modern depictions will show a crossbowmen standing behind a large pavise, implying that he carried it there himself, but then there are references to "pavisieri" or shield bearers.

It looks like, in melee, they just jammed them all together and let them aid each other with their various weapons. I'm wondering if this was typical of medieval infantry fighting?

I assume that crossbowmen and archers were massed together for ranged fighting (this is certainly supported by contemporary imagery), perhaps with other infantry behind them, ready to move in if required -- at which point I guess the archers could join in.

[Spiryt]

Stopping them two steps from stabbing range is very handy, because it means they never get to stab you. Even if you hit their shield, you'll quite probably penetrate and wound them through the thing. Should that fail, the big heavy iron bar sticking out of the shield will render it too awkward for use. You, still in possession of a shield, now have a substantial advantage.

Either that, or you throw the thing from horseback, in which case against somebody with a sword, two steps from stabbing distance is really quite safe.

Well, unless they will cover said two steps quickly and you will get stabbed while you are taking a swing to toss a heavy javelin, which is pretty damn bad way to receive some stabbing.... Or grab/push away said javelin.

From the point of effectiveness, as close as possible is certainly best though. I would suspect that it would be thrown by some fighters in the line, while others are preparing to engage in melee.

[Galloglaich]

I don't know how they were used, but they appear to have had a persistant role.

In addition to the Almogavars and the Catalan company who I already mentioned, I was just reading this book which mentions javelin armed troops in use in France and Flanders in the 14th C. There appear to have been French troop type called bidauts or coutereaux who were armed primarily with the javelin, who were part of the French army as late as Courtrai, in the 13th and probably all the way through the 14th Century. They are also mentioned here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SLT...avelin&f=false

Still later on you see a lot of documentation of javelin armed troops in Switzerland and Ireland, among other places. And they remained in the Baltic, notably in Samogitia.

G

[Straybow]

in fencing strength is going to be less important but if your both wearing armor and you can only hurt him by striking at his vulnerable parts and he can kill you with even a glancing blow the odds are very much in his favor.

not to mention fencing has little to do with a battle there superhuman strength means hes not going to be fatigued by the constant combat which will give him a huge advantage.

[The first part] assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong, which isn't necessarily the case.

[The second part] seems to mean stamina, not strength (not necessarily the same thing) although in comic books and so on I guess they often go together.

But even in battle, 'fencing' skill still matters very much. It's a myth that you just hit harder or the strongest guy wins. Maybe better for games or whatever genre context you want to stick to the fantasy though.

A foil is faster than an arming sword, and has an advantage in that aspect. If an extremely strong man can wield the arming sword as easily as you wield the rapier, that speed advantage is gone.

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example). The primary advantage of strength in battle is the ability to confer the body's momentum through the weapon. In some cases the mass of the muscled arm alone is much greater than that of the man of more modest proportion.

A polearm can injure a man through his armor without cutting through it. So can some well designed one-handed picks, maces, and flails, to a lesser extent. An extremely strong man could do the same with a balanced sword (though the edge would undoubtedly suffer much abuse).

Body momentum is the main reason why two-handed weapons have much greater power than the proportion of weight compared to single handed weapons would dictate. Driving with the body is almost automatic with a staff or polearm, given minimal training to familiarize the person with proper technique.

[Galloglaich]

I hear what you are saying, but ... review what you said above and watch this carefully,

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

make especial note of 0:25 and 0:27

I think while it's true specialized armor-piercing weapons like picks and maces can hurt armor, you don't need to be super strong for that to work. Non armor-piercing weapons won't suddenly become armor-piercing simply because you are a lot stronger (unless you are say, as strong as a bulldozer or a locomotive)

As for a foil vs. an arming sword. A foil is a training weapon specifically designed so that it can't hurt you. It doesn't really matter how strong you are, a foil will just break if you swing 'extra super duper hard'.

Now a rapier, if that is what you were thinking of, actually weighs about the same as an arming sword, or a little more, depending on the specific rapier or the arming sword.

Arming swords are quick, in real life, and effective speed in a fight is much more a factor of skill and technique than it is brute strength. That is why a 80 year old Kendoka can fight like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcBf9XUrsJw

Super strong guy with no real martial arts training, will swing wildly and make openings to be attacked. If he does have martial arts training, super strength will no doubt be an advantage. If he has no real training but he does have say, a suit of armor, he could be dangerous by just grappling opponents (especially in a chaotic mixed battle situation)


But there is no changing the fact that steel weapons aren't very good at cutting through steel armor, and fighting with weapons requires skill (and courage) not just strength.

G

[Spiryt]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in particular at 0:25 and 0:27...

I do think that while "super strength" isn't required (and it's hard to define), a lot of energy/force behind the mace or hammer blow definitely help a lot. It's from definition forceful after all.

Although accuracy may indeed be more interesting approach - I keep hearing that with well made armor, finger/joints injuries are by far most prevalent in stuff like that. Bombarding torso/head is rarely all that dangerous.


Main 'armor piercing' thing that stuff like BoN is missing is obviously any sort of more serious thrusting - suddenly those god-damned grill visors wouldn't be so practical.

[Galloglaich]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in particular at 0:25 and 0:27...

I'm referring to full strength, two-handed polearm strikes

I do think that while "super strength" isn't required (and it's hard to define), a lot of energy/force behind the mace or hammer blow definitely help a lot. It's from definition forceful after all.

My understanding of the physics is that it's more about the shape and the technique. The axe blade, even from a running start, doesn't seem to even badly dent the helmets in these re-enactor events. But if they had a proper back-spike on them, you could punch through some of those helmets without even that much force as we have seen in some tests.

Main 'armor piercing' thing that stuff like BoN is missing is obviously any sort of more serious thrusting - suddenly those god-damned grill visors wouldn't be so practical.

And weapons like say, awl-pikes, and actual infantry formation tactics, a bit more martial arts trainnig, and a way to win a fight other than just knocking somebody over. But then of course it would be an actual war rather than a fun (if dangerous) sport, and that isn't really feasible.

G

[Spiryt]

With spikes of all kind, proper aligment is probably the key indeed - not that much force required, it must not deflect of strike at angle though.

The goal is to make opponent unwilling/able to continue, so this is as realistic as one can go without casualties.

As far as tactics go, they are serious, and more elaborate year by year, but obviously they really anyhow similar to actual historical ones. Starting with the fact that sudden, open field battles of 10 fully, monstrously armored men probably weren't very usual occurrence.

[awa]

in that video i saw a lot of pushing and kicking if one of those guys had the raw strength of a grizzly bear every push or kick send his foe to the ground or worse knock over the guys behind him in they type of fighting i saw in that video super strength would be a massive advantage.

There were also people blocking blows with shields and weapons if your foe can break your limbs or drive you to the ground every time you try and stop him the fight wont last long.

also the argument was never binary strength vrs skill. But strength has value so a super strong moderately skilled warrior could beat a superior but normal strength opponent the only question is how much does strength tilt the scale with some indicating that strength has virtually no effect and others indicating that in certain types of battle it adds quite a bit of advantage.

[Brother Oni]

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example).

Actually, I've been crunching some numbers and as far as I can tell the longer weapon is faster.

The main assumptions I've made is that the stronger person can complete the strike in the same time as the weaker person by virtue of their increased strength and that the weapon can withstand the greater forces involved.

Suppose we have a swordsman performing an overhead strike. Let's say the attack travels through 90 degrees and it takes him 1 second to complete (he's doing a slow demonstration cut).

• Musashi with a 1m sword, the weapon tip has a speed of ~1.6m/s.
• Gats with a 2m sword, the weapon tip has a speed of ~3.1m/s
• The Hulk with a 9m telegraph pole, the tip has a speed of ~14.1m/s.
• Augus from Asura's Wrath with his fully extended sword, has a weapon tip speed of ~20,000km/s.

So going from realistic to the incredibly silly, it would indicate that strength confers an advantage in simply hefting a weapon around.

An issue that I haven't addressed is weapon inertia - the larger and heavier the weapon, the slower it will be to initially move (thus potentially telegraphing their blows to their opponent), but it will be equally harder to deflect or block.
I doubt even Musashi could successfully deflect a 300kg telegraph pole being swung at his head, even if he saw it coming a mile off (he'd dodge it instead).

[JustSomeGuy]

There are many different 'applications' of strength, and each allows for the production of force in a slightly different way (this is why the world record bench presser doesn't also hold the records for the squat, deadlift, highland games, various strongman events, clean & jerk, snatch, discus, shot put, hammer, javelin etc.)

So to say someone with crazy strength would be agile (a measure of power and reaction speed, intramuscular coordination, nueral drive and various adaptations throughout the skeleton and musculature vs. total bodyweight), hit hard (again, power and neural drive combined with the rehearsed motor patterns for efficiently generating force with the powerful muscles of the hips and transferring this power through the torso, shoulder and arm in a coordinated fashion), or anything else would not be totally accurate. That being said, as muscle is the only anatomical tissue that creates force and thus generates movement, you could summise that a more muscular or stronger individual will be 'better' at stuff that invloves moving (hitting, blocking, speed, force etc.). An analogy would be putting a more powerful engine in a vehicle - it won'te necessarily be faster at a particular motorsport event, nor will it automatically be quicker compared to a different car, but a more powerful engine will generally improve it's capability across the board of tasks and make it better than it was (and either close the gap or increase the advantage against the second car).

As far as 'what would a sudden increase in strength do?', i would say it would very quickly lead to avulsion fractures and tendon ruptures, as the muscles themselves (assuming they themselves are ok with the increased force production) create force which is greater than the injury threshold (or breaking strain, if you will) of the other structures in the kinetic chain (like a car with a suddenly more powerful engine tearing up the gearbox or snapping driveshafts).

Finally, with regards to adrenaline making us stronger, that isn't true. It allows us to perform closer to our true potential, similar to warmups, rehearsals, mental prep techniques, etc. (many of which work to increase our circulating adrenaline, even doing nothing ahead of an expected task will lead to an increase, called the anticipatory response) Without these, we are just performing under our potential.

This thread is pretty cool, by the way, and i love dropping in to read up on this stuff. I do have one question though - with regard to swordsmen (or spearmen, lets' not get caught up in that one!) dropping under pikemen and shredding through them in closer combat, why would they not just lower some of the pikes to deny the approach, either the rearward ranks as a more permanant formation strategy (their reach being compromised i doubt they do much at the front anyway but await being shot down on this!), or simply the front guys drop pikes lower when they see the other soldiers approaching?

[Brother Oni]

I do have one question though - with regard to swordsmen (or spearmen, lets' not get caught up in that one!) dropping under pikemen and shredding through them in closer combat, why would they not just lower some of the pikes to deny the approach, either the rearward ranks as a more permanant formation strategy (their reach being compromised i doubt they do much at the front anyway but await being shot down on this!), or simply the front guys drop pikes lower when they see the other soldiers approaching?

The pikemen do drop their pikes lower, but there's a minimum number of ranks required to achieve an impassable (from the front anyway) barrier for swordsmen or other close melee equipped troops.

However it's not just a matter of 'dropping your pikes lower', it's keeping the sharp metal pointy bit inbetween them and you. If a swordsman can deflect it to the side or above and step within the reach of the pike's head, then the weapon's effectively useless. Additionally when you're in formation, it's very hard to shorten your grip on your pike, as there's people behind you stopping it.

Thus while a skirmish formation of swordsmen can get past a single rank of pikemen fairly easily, when there's several ranks of them, all staggered at different distances, it becomes a much harder task.

It's only after the pikemen start taking losses (either through missile fire or cannon) or suffer significant formation disruption that swordsmen start trying to get close.

[endoperez]

I'm referring to full strength, two-handed polearm strikes

Here are some links that might offer something like that:

Pollaxe tournament in Phoenix, 2008. I don't think they actually hit each other with full strength, but it is quite physical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJz99KtJjg

However, like others, I don't think just being able to hit with more power would be a game-ender. Here's a choerographed fight where the combatants wear full plate and one's armed with a two-handed hammer. The video is not realistic by any means, but any way, I like the way the shield redirects the blow instead of blocking it force-against-force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqRkxTjV1c

edit:
Oh, and this is nice too: sword strike against the chest plate just bounces off. Not full strength, not the ideal tactic, but still cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=0m35s

[Galloglaich]

An analogy would be putting a more powerful engine in a vehicle - it won'te necessarily be faster at a particular motorsport event, nor will it automatically be quicker compared to a different car, but a more powerful engine will generally improve it's capability across the board of tasks and make it better than it was (and either close the gap or increase the advantage against the second car).

I think this is a good analogy, which I would extend as follows: I would suggest fencing (by which I mean any kind of armed hand-to-hand combat, particularly with weapons longer than a foot or two) is less like a Nascar race and more like a Grand Prix race. Putting a Monster Truck engine in a Grand Prix / Formula One car isn't necessarily going to help you win much, or even get through the course.

Especially if you have an inexperienced driver ;)

G

[JustSomeGuy]

True. Although a development of the engine (or a more powerful or at least power-optimised engine of similar mass and dimensions) currently in the formula one car would enable a skilled driver the better chance of winning; similarly, a proficient fencer would be a better fencer with some strength training (i would focus on agility/reaction times and power, although i absolutely must come clean to know nothing of fencing beond the wearing of face masks and it relies upon point scoring).

EDIT: To put it more snappily, strength isn't a good substitution for skill, but it makes a damn fine addition to it.

[Galloglaich]

Well... my point is that there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to brute strength for fighting with weapons, and it's not power-lifter strength. Just like there is a 'sweet spot' for racing that requires agility as well as power; so to stick with our analogy, while a Monster Truck may have an engine in the 1400 - 2000 hp range, an F1 car has closer to 950 hp. Still powerful, but not quite in the same ballpark.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was sword fighting with that 80 year old guy from the Kendo video, the old guy would cut a tendon in his arm before he could land a blow, and it would be all over.

Just like if a Monster Truck was racing a (124 hp) Mazda Miata around an Formula 1 track, I suspect the Miata would win (assuming the Monster Truck couldn't just make shortcuts across the field ;) ).

Yes strength is beneficial, and there is no doubt the same Kendoka would be more dangerous at age 30 with equivalent (or close to equivalent) skill, and even more so if he was unusually strong. Just like a ferrari would do better than a miata in that contest I mentioned above. But freakish, ginormous strength would not necessarily be a shortcut to victory all on it's own I don't think and I'm not even sure it would help all that much.

Now two guys grappling, or two guys in armor fighting with maces, well maybe then yeah it would be helpful...

G

[JustSomeGuy]

There is no sweet spot for strength, stronger is always better. The sweet spot is where the additional strength comes at the expense of agility, mobility, energy systems' efficiency, and the time needed to improve that strength. But the strength itself is not the problem, merely the cost of attaining it - which varies according to training advancement and individual factors.

I agree, the monster truck and bodybuilder would blow at the tasks, but equally a more powerful miata or a stronger 80 year old swordsman would have the advantage, which is my point.

[Brother Oni]

But freakish, ginormous strength would not necessarily be a shortcut to victory all on it's own I don't think and I'm not even sure it would help all that much.

Unless it's of such an extreme to permit things not normally possible (your monster truck making its own shortcuts across the track for example).

The sweet spot is where the additional strength comes at the expense of agility, mobility, energy systems' efficiency, and the time needed to improve that strength.

Agreed. My old sifu advised against doing heavy weights training to improve muscle mass as the additional bulk may affect flexibility.

[Yora]

In that case you should do muscle strength training instead of muscle volume training. You can get crazy strong without bulging much, and you can have huge muscles that are not very strong.

[Matthew]

Here is an interesting question. In the series A Song of Ice and Fire some bowmen face off against some crossbowmen with "hard cover" about three feet tall or so. The crossbowmen rest their weapons on the cover and only expose their heads and enough of their bodies to shoot, gaining a huge advantage over the bowmen who have to expose all of their upper body to shoot back. How credible is this scenario?

It seems to me that whilst the crossbowmen might be at a slight advantage, the bowmen could use the cover in other ways. Let us assume bows around five feet in total length and crossbows loaded by belt hooks and manual strength to begin with. Anybody have any input as to what would be the likely difference in effectiveness?

At the moment, for purposes of game translation, the contention is that the crossbowmen could claim 90% cover and the bowmen something like 50% cover. That seems like a big disparity to me, though if the bowmen limited themselves to imitating the crossbowmen I could see it happening. However, I am no expert on shooting, so maybe it is true.

[Spiryt]

Agreed. My old sifu advised against doing heavy weights training to improve muscle mass as the additional bulk may affect flexibility.

It may, if done very extensively, for sheer purpose of gaining a lot of muscle mass or lifting strength.

If done more 'ordinarily' it's very unlikely that gains may inhibit motoric functions very much.

In that case you should do muscle strength training instead of muscle volume training. You can get crazy strong without bulging much, and you can have huge muscles that are not very strong.

Huge lifting strength for given mass honestly get's harder and harder to gain, from obvious diminished returns reason, and it honestly doesn't have that much influence on actual combat 'effectiveness'.

Gaining more mass that you can still move around dynamically is much more sensible.

At the moment, for purposes of game translation, the contention is that the crossbowmen could claim 90% cover and the bowmen something like 50% cover. That seems like a big disparity to me, though if the bowmen limited themselves to imitating the crossbowmen I could see it happening. However, I am no expert on shooting, so maybe it is true.

This does sound about reasonable to me.

From obvious reasons crossbows will be easier to shot will having nice cover.

With some very light draw bows, that user could span with his arms, hands at weird angles to body, one could loose arrows from some funky positions, I guess. Still not quite the same.

[randomhero00]

I think the main thing you guys are missing here with the super strength discussion, is that you no longer need to follow normal rules of fighting. Its the same reason why most super heroes/villains don't bother to use any kind of conventional weaponry, if at all. Why bother with a sword, if you can stand a 100 yards back and throw a 1 ton bolder at the enemy ranks? :D

Or in modern times, push a building on top of your enemy?

Or literally swing a wrecking ball around like a yo-yo?

Now as for normal human parameters it'd be strength vs skill vs speed.

Personally, I'd order them thus:
1. Skill
2. Speed
...
5. Strength

When I was in martial arts we were told not to overly jog for endurance (ends up decreasing speed) or muscle (well lifting) building and focus on bursts of speed instead.

Physics easily supports this claim.
kinetic energy = 1/2mass x velocity^2

The velocity is obviously a much bigger factor, being squared, than the 1/2mass. Otherwise, bullets, which are small and light, wouldn't kill us!

[Mike_G]

Here is an interesting question. In the series A Song of Ice and Fire some bowmen face off against some crossbowmen with "hard cover" about three feet tall or so. The crossbowmen rest their weapons on the cover and only expose their heads and enough of their bodies to shoot, gaining a huge advantage over the bowmen who have to expose all of their upper body to shoot back. How credible is this scenario?

It seems to me that whilst the crossbowmen might be at a slight advantage, the bowmen could use the cover in other ways. Let us assume bows around five feet in total length and crossbows loaded by belt hooks and manual strength to begin with. Anybody have any input as to what would be the likely difference in effectiveness?

At the moment, for purposes of game translation, the contention is that the crossbowmen could claim 90% cover and the bowmen something like 50% cover. That seems like a big disparity to me, though if the bowmen limited themselves to imitating the crossbowmen I could see it happening. However, I am no expert on shooting, so maybe it is true.

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

[Brother Oni]

It may, if done very extensively, for sheer purpose of gaining a lot of muscle mass or lifting strength.

If done more 'ordinarily' it's very unlikely that gains may inhibit motoric functions very much.

The example he gave was doing additional chest work on building up the pectorals, which may impede the ability to get your elbow across to cover your centre line.

For example, I cannot sit cross-legged as my legs are too thick (there's a gap of about 2 inches at my knees):

Spoiler

Show

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

In addition to this, an archer can short draw his bow for both increased rate of fire and to change the distance when shooting indirectly.
With certain crossbows this is also possible, but not if they need belt hooks to draw.

[warty goblin]

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

The geometry doesn't work out that way in general.

For a first simple analysis, consider flat trajectories. If the arrow is originating from any point above the covering object, taking a step back from the cover will reduce the proportion of your body it protects. For a point of origin under the cover, taking a step back does indeed provide more protection.

Considering parabolic flight paths, excluding air resistance, and assuming a set release velocity, the model becomes considerably more complex, but I don't think one would substantially alter one's behavior.

[Spiryt]

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

By the same geometric principles though, by taking such step back, archer also limits his angles of shooting significantly, not to mention the vision of what's beyond the cover.

As far as "mortaring" with bows, it's certainly possible, but I don't think I've ever heard about even remotely accurate bow/whatever fire while someone tells you what he's seeing...

Mortar shells blow up, arrows won't do here.

The example he gave was doing additional chest work on building up the pectorals, which may impede the ability to get your elbow across to cover your centre line.

For example, I cannot sit cross-legged as my legs are too thick (there's a gap of about 2 inches at my knees):

Spoiler

Show

If someone is body-building so heavily, that muscle growth impedes his range motion, it indeed will be a problem. But that's specific situation, and such person won't train martial arts anyway, body just wouldn't be able to do both, even with liberal application of steroids.