Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[fusilier]

Hmph. I would call those "large shields." I thought real pavises were more like door-sized.

One of my favorite pictures of pavises:

[fusilier]

Another question on guns:

As I understand it, by the early 19th Century it was common practise for line infantry to use ´buck & ball´with smoothbore weapons on shorter ranges, adding shot to the musket ball to do more damage to tight formations at the cost of accuracy/range (correct me if I´m wrong).

How early was this done?

How about dedicated ´shot´guns, like shotgun () and blunderbuss? When did they come into use?

Buck and ball was probably standard by the late 18th century. Prior to that, there were examples of multiple loads (I think often two balls). Shot was probably used more for hunting -- especially in a time when your opponent had a good chance of being armored.

Historically buckshot was used by guards, but I'm not sure how far back that goes.

There really wasn't the need for a dedicated "shot weapon" and I'm not aware of any until the late 17th century. As most weapons were smoothbore just pick one that gives you the right spread and go with it. A blunderbuss was a kind of coach-gun. The bell end to the barrel doesn't do anything for the spread of the shot, instead it facilitates loading on the back of a moving carriage. :-) They don't show up until the 18th century (maybe very late 17th).

[Beleriphon]

1610- the Flintlock

This was the ultimate firing mechanism until the invention of the percussion cap. This was essentially a much simpler and more efficient version of the wheellock, which opened the priming pan right as it shot.

All these weapons are muzzle loaders, usually smooth bore though there were some rifled barrels as far back as medieval times, and they were also making small breach-loading cannon as early as the 14th Century.

G

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

[Galloglaich]

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

It's not really my area of knowledge let alone expertise when you get that late, but my understanding was that it was a rather gradual process where the primer and the load became increasingly standardized. The invention of corned powder led quickly to the pre-measuring of powder for each shot, and shortly after that you see depictions of guys with little bundles of powder (sometimes with a bullet tied up in a second part, and / or the pre-measured primer).

Like this guy from 1585



See the little bandolier of pouches along his chest? The thing he has in his right hand is an aiming stake, which may also serve as a linstock. He would rest his gun on that when shooting.

The percussion cap came along in the early 19th Century, which was basically the primer with an explosive mixture (fulminate of mercury) that would detonate when struck by a hammer. Just like a cap if you ever had a cap gun. This is the basis of most bullets today. Gradually the brass cartridge evolved from the old cloth cartridge, through a paper stage (IIRC) and on to modern firearms.

Fusilier can probably fill in more details but I think that is the basics of it.

G

[Galloglaich]

In Italy this is somewhat debated. Clearly the intent in mounting crossbowmen on horse back was originally to give them mobility, but some claim that they could use from horseback in battle. Given the Italian preference for belt-hooks for spanning crossbows, it sounds like it would be difficult to reload.

Goats feet and cranequin had become pretty widespread by the 15th Century but I'll defer to your familiarity with Italy on this one. I think generally though when people talk about crossbows, they tend to conflate or confuse different types, since they all look quite similar. In Central Europe there were several distinct types or grades of crossbows in use side by side, including the stirrup crossbow, all the way to the phasing out of all crossbows as military weapons by around the mid 16th Century.

I think this is the source of a lot of the confusion in the endless debates about English longbows vs. crossbows (and everything else). They tend to compare longbows to light crossbows when talking about range and penetration and then to windlass crossbows when talking about reloading.

It's kind of like with guns, a lot of people couldn't tell the difference between a carbine, an arquebus, a late or early musket, or a blunderbuss, but as we know they were very different weapons with different levels of performance.

Actually a pavisieri didn't necessarily carry a pavise, and was usually a spearman with a shield of some sort. By the middle of the 15th century such shields were usually oval or round shaped. Still big but not a pavise (in the sense that it could not be planted on the ground).

Yes this is what I alluded to upthread ;) 'Pavisieri' didn't necessarily refer to men carrying pavises, and vise versa.

Pavises may have continued in use Central Europe for a bit longer. Here you can find the Bohemian's boasting about their pavises as late as 1519.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

That is the same discussion thread I linked to upthread...

But I get the feeling that they were rather behind the times tactically speaking (not technologically speaking, however).

Who, the Czechs? I don't think so.... The Czechs were one of the very few who could defeat the Ottomans in open field battles, which is why the Venetians and the Hungarians hired so many of them to fight in the Balkans.

But where are the Spanish and French pavises from that time period?

The Spanish did also still use pavises both for gunners and crossbowmen, but they moved fairly quickly to the steel rotella for the same role. The French concentrated their military development on heavy cavalry (anachronistically), and relied principally on the Swiss for infantry. The Swiss put most of their emphasis on pikemen but did also use pavises with their crossbowmen, as well as mounted crossbowmen.

By the early 1500s the Spanish were starting to show themselves to be a leading military power, and while an early adopter of arquebuses, they still employed crossbowmen.

Indeed, Cortez had as many crossbowmen as arquebusiers when he first arrived in Mexico.

Pavises limited the infantry's mobility, and as tactics evolved they were increasingly discarded. It's not like there's a switch thrown, and suddenly everybody threw their pavises into furnaces -- but over time their use diminished. That diminishment may have occurred at different times in different places. But it's pretty clear it began in the 15th century and was complete, at least by 1550.

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't think it was that simple. Pavises probably did largely disappear by the mid 16th Century, but I think it's quite inaccurate to suggest that they were on a steady decline through the 15th, to the contrary, their use obviously increased through the 15th Century and peaked near the dawn of the 16th.

I suspect their decline was due to muskets, and cannon.

G

[Beleriphon]

The percussion cap came along in the early 19th Century, which was basically the primer with an explosive mixture (fulminate of mercury) that would detonate when struck by a hammer. Just like a cap if you ever had a cap gun. This is the basis of most bullets today. Gradually the brass cartridge evolved from the old cloth cartridge, through a paper stage (IIRC) and on to modern firearms.

Fusilier can probably fill in more details but I think that is the basics of it.

G

That matches my limited knowledge, so that seems reasonable. I know that percussion cap were still in use by the time of the US Civil War, and were basically standardized to the point that they could mass produced by the Union, or imported by the Confederacy. Of course by that point the common firearm was a rifle, rather than a smooth-bore firearm.

[Galloglaich]

Regarding the blunderbuss / dragon / musketoon family of weapons, I gather they were used somewhat extensively in the 18th - 19th Centuries for naval warfare, notably by pirates, and also to some extent by cavalry (isn't 'dragoon' derived from 'dragon' as in the short blunderbus?).

That is interesting about the rifles in the US Civil War I thought it was mostly still smoothbore muskets at least in the early part. I know by the end the North had lever-action rifles which must have conferred a huge advantage I would guess?

G

[fusilier]

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't think it was that simple. Pavises probably did largely disappear by the mid 16th Century, but I think it's quite inaccurate to suggest that they were on a steady decline through the 15th, to the contrary, their use obviously increased through the 15th Century and peaked near the dawn of the 16th.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? They may have peaked in use in different places at different times, but that hardly defines a trend.

Also, I'm not aware of crossbowmen using rotellas for defense?

[fusilier]

That is interesting about the rifles in the US Civil War I thought it was mostly still smoothbore muskets at least in the early part. I know by the end the North had lever-action rifles which must have conferred a huge advantage I would guess?

G

Basically. Smoothbore muskets were around in large numbers at the start of the Civil War, whereas the newer rifle musket design (referred to as M1855, but not entering production until 1857), was only available in limited quantities. Some smoothbore muskets had been rifled as well, a conversion process that continued during the war. At the beginning there was so much need for muskets of any kind that they imported all sorts of weapons. Gradually as the war progressed you would see fewer and fewer smoothbores, but they never disappeared completely, even in the Union armies (especially in the western theater).

Rifle muskets were the "standard" design at the time. There were several forms of breechloader available, and even a few repeaters -- but they were rare. While it is true that a Union soldier would be more likely to have a repeater, they were never widespread among the Union army. At the end of the war, some of the cavalry regiments seem to have been well equipped with Spencer repeating carbines -- but the army abandoned these during the late 1860s for single shot breechloaders.

[fusilier]

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

No. The percussion cap was just the primer, it was an explosive designed to detonate on impact, usually a "fulminate" of some sort. The main charge of gunpowder still had to be loaded independently.

On some breechloader designs (Sharps carbine and rifle), a paper cartridge containing the powder and bullet could be loaded into the gun as a unit, but a percussion cap still had to be placed on the "nipple". For muzzle-loading weapons, if paper cartridges were being used they were opened, the powder poured down the barrel, then the bullet inserted (either with the remainder of the paper, or squeezed out of it -- depending upon drill manual used).

The percussion cap, is in my opinion, a huge revolution. Or at the very least the first step in a revolution. It allowed for the concept of a "self-contained cartridge", in which all the ammunition components are bundled together in a single unit.

The first designs were paper cartridges, with gunpowder and bullet sandwiching the percussion primer. Soon metallic cartridges were invented -- they solved the problem of gas-seal by being able to expand when fired, then contracting slightly allowing for extraction of the spent cartridge.

At this point magazines start to become feasible, as well as automatic weapons, etc.

[fusilier]

Pavise

Osprey Men-at-Arm 94: The Swiss At War 1300-1500, pg 16:

By the time of the Burgundian Wars the pavise had ceased to be used by the Swiss as a protective shield for crossbowmen and handgunners, although it was probably used in siegework.

Burgundian Wars, 1474-77.

[Matthew]

Anyway, back to the archer versus crossbowman cover question.

Full draw from kneeling is possible, however you can only half draw at best when the bow is horizontal, since your own body gets in the way (you also better hope that the string doesn't snag on your sleeve).

However I adjust my opinion on archers not being able to get full cover from a 3ft wall - on testing, you just expose your head and the top half of your bow when you fire (potentially less, since you can possibly arc your shot over the wall after a brief glance out of cover, but I need to go down the range to test this).

What does appear to be a weakness in my opinion is that the top half of your bow sticks up above the wall like a wooden dorsal fin, which may give forewarning or a potential target to the crossbowmen

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the author is familiar with bows only being shot from the traditional upright stance and this carried through into the scene in the book.

For reference, I'm 5'7" using a 68" olympic recurve and have a 28" draw length.

Nice practical information, thanks! Let us know how it goes on the range.

[Brother Oni]

Nice practical information, thanks! Let us know how it goes on the range.

I will do, weather permitting. *Tries to keep a straight face*

Out of curiousity, do you have a book and page reference for the scene in question? Our range has moveable targets, so I can actually test the feasibility of hitting a target at that distance while using a 3ft wall as cover (within the limitations of my bow).

[Matthew]

I will do, weather permitting. *Tries to keep a straight face*

Out of curiousity, do you have a book and page reference for the scene in question? Our range has moveable targets, so I can actually test the feasibility of hitting a target at that distance while using a 3ft wall as cover (within the limitations of my bow).

No, apparently it was an audio book. I can try and find out what book it was, I think. Pretty sure it is not the first one and likely not the second.

[Spiryt]

It's quite possible that author was indeed thinking of some really heavy warbows there, which can pretty much only be shoot from upright position, with the whole use of back, legs etc. to draw it.

With lighter bow that one can more or less comfortably draw with motion of shoulder area only, one can obviously try to perform more 'tricky' shots.

[Brother Oni]

It's quite possible that author was indeed thinking of some really heavy warbows there, which can pretty much only be shoot from upright position, with the whole use of back, legs etc. to draw it.

With lighter bow that one can more or less comfortably draw with motion of shoulder area only, one can obviously try to perform more 'tricky' shots.

While I won't dispute the first point as I have limited information on the scene in question, I will the second. Unless you're very strong, any full drawing is done using the back muscles, even with comparatively light bows.

With half drawing you can get away with arm only, but I had sufficient space to reach full draw using my back while kneeling (hence why I listed my bow length and my height). If you had a very long bow that you couldn't hold while kneeling, then I would agree that would be an issue, but most self bowmen I've seen tend to angle their bows anyway as they don't have an arrow rest.

Aside from giving the archer a steady base, I'm also not quite seeing how the legs are involved in drawing a bow, unless you've got really odd technique.

[Spiryt]

Steady base, as of point to push/pull off, while drawing really heavy bow, shifting your weight to be able to pull the bow...

English archers were even often depicted barefoot for maximum adhesion, AFAIR.

Here's fun little video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyEIk...layer_embedded

Upright posture is pretty obviously universally required for human to perform "maximum strength" lifting, pushing, throwing, hacking and whatever, bows are not different.

[Galloglaich]

Found a very good website on the history of early firerams, thought people here might be interested

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm

G

[Brother Oni]

Steady base, as of point to push/pull off, while drawing really heavy bow, shifting your weight to be able to pull the bow...

English archers were even often depicted barefoot for maximum adhesion, AFAIR.

Here's fun little video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyEIk...layer_embedded

Upright posture is pretty obviously universally required for human to perform "maximum strength" lifting, pushing, throwing, hacking and whatever, bows are not different.

Huh, interesting video. It's from the English Warbow Society so presumably it's a legitimate historical technique.

From the society entry requirements, that selfbow has a minimum draw of 70lbs at 32" full draw (my arms won't even reach that far ). I will question what sort of accuracy that technique has though, but if you're just firing into formations, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

That said, the Mongols are renowned for their horse archery and what research I can find suggests their bows had a similarly heavy draw weights, so I presume it's still possible to not need your legs to draw powerful bows (with some technique modification).

Some additional research suggests that English bows were also used mounted, although with some issues as the mounted archer could only really fire sideways effectively - firing forwards as horse archers often did usually resulted in the bow poking the horse, which affected your accuracy and reload times.

My turn for interesting videos: Battlefield kyudo.
While he's using a yumi (Japanese bow) which is designed to be off centre, he doesn't appear to have any trouble drawing or hitting his targets while kneeling.
I can't find any reference to the draw weight of his bow, although war yumi were recorded to have a draw weight of 90lb (I doubt that this bow is that heavy though).

[Storm Bringer]

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

to expand on others points:

the concept of a cartridge ( a bullet and powder in a contained case of some sort) appears to date back to the 1500s as shown. they contained a ball and a mesured amount of powder, to speed up loading (compared to mucking about witha powder horn). Here is a a photo of some english civil war (~1640s) reenactors, whichs gives you a good idea of the size of the wooden cartridges. A dozen were carried, which led to the nickname "the 12 apostles" for the cartridges.

Paper cartridges were, according to the Wiki, used as far back as 1586, and, to my knowledge, replaced wooden cartridges sometime in the mid-to late 1600s, with paper being standard by 1700 or so. paper was better, because:
A. you can carry more
b. was easier to use than a wooden one,
C. the paper could be waxed or greased to add water proofing to the charge, making it work better in wet weather.
D. the paper acted as wadding (very important in a age where bullets were deliberatly made too small to easy loading).


Now matchlock weapons were standard in the 1600's and remained in use in europe in some roles until as late as 1720, if the Wiki is to be believed. I understand that in india and china the cheap and simple matchlock soldiered on to the early 19th century (i'm pretty sure that some indians in the 1810s and that most chinese in the 1840's faced off agianst british redcoats with matchlocks in hand).

one point i'd like to make about the different locks is that the wheel and flintlocks was that these were both more reliable than matchlocks (though even a napoleonic era flintlock had a field misfire rate of about 1 in 5 shots), and that the flintlock in particular was much faster and easier to load, as you didn't need to faff about with a piece of burning string in one hand while pouring gunpowder in the other, not to mention the fiddling about needed to keep the match burning properly (i'm pretty sure the frist dozen of so steps for loading a matchlock are dedicated solely to sorting out the match).

thus, a unit with flintlocks ws both faster firing and suffered fewer misfires than a matchlock unit, which led to thier quick adoption in europe.

next major innovation is the precussion cap, which replaced the small pan of powder (which was the major cause to misfires in flintlocks, as the powder here either failed to ignite or went off without setting off the main charge, a "flash in the pan") with a small 'cap' of precussion (shock) sensitive explosive (orginally, they tried to replace the whole powder charge, but the results were too unstable and shock sensitive for practical use, so they lowered the charge and created the cap). this, again, made the weapon quicker to load and more reliable, and was adotped around the 1840-1860 era, along with rifled barrels, leading to the change from flintlock mustkets to precussion rifles used in the Crimean and Amerian Civil wars.

Here is a video that shows both the loading of a precussion rifles and a civil war era cannon (which is basically the same as napoleonic era cannons, i believe).

[Galloglaich]

Wow check this awesome gun out!



http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

and this one

Spoiler

Show

both replicas of guns (or 'gonnes') from Danzig, I think 14th Century

G

[fusilier]

next major innovation is the precussion cap, which replaced the small pan of powder (which was the major cause to misfires in flintlocks, as the powder here either failed to ignite or went off without setting off the main charge, a "flash in the pan") with a small 'cap' of precussion (shock) sensitive explosive (orginally, they tried to replace the whole powder charge, but the results were too unstable and shock sensitive for practical use, so they lowered the charge and created the cap). this, again, made the weapon quicker to load and more reliable, and was adotped around the 1840-1860 era, along with rifled barrels, leading to the change from flintlock mustkets to precussion rifles used in the Crimean and Amerian Civil wars.

Here is a video that shows both the loading of a precussion rifles and a civil war era cannon (which is basically the same as napoleonic era cannons, i believe).

Good post. A minor correction, use of the percussion cap did not make loading any faster (in fact some claim it may have made it slower). But it was so much more reliable, and made the gun much easier to load in the rain.

A major difference between a civil war cannon and a napoleonic era one would be the ignition system. During napoleonic times they would have used a linstock (a matchcord on the end of a stick), or port-fire (think of a truck flare). Usually port-fire was reserved for instances where speed was desired. By the American Civil War, friction primers were in use. These were inserted into the vent and attached to a lanyard, which was yanked by the gunner to fire the piece.

You are correct about matchlocks (I've fired one) -- a lot of the drill is keeping the hand holding the burning matchcord away from the hand holding the powder!

[Storm Bringer]

Good post. A minor correction, use of the percussion cap did not make loading any faster (in fact some claim it may have made it slower). But it was so much more reliable, and made the gun much easier to load in the rain.

A major difference between a civil war cannon and a napoleonic era one would be the ignition system. During napoleonic times they would have used a serpentine (a matchcord on the end of a stick), or port-fire (think of a truck flare). Usually port-fire was reserved for instances where speed was desired. By the American Civil War, friction primers were in use. These were inserted into the vent and attached to a lanyard, which was yanked by the gunner to fire the piece.

You are correct about matchlocks (I've fired one) -- a lot of the drill is keeping the hand holding the burning matchcord away from the hand holding the powder!

that does remind me. I;m resonably certian that at least some cannon in the napoleonic wars were flintlocks. the only pictures i;ve seen are in a naval context, such as here. you can see them agian in the flim Master and commander, where, notably, a main character gets his hand trapped under a flint during the final fight

[Galloglaich]

Surprising how fast they can shoot one of those handgonnes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8

G

[Galloglaich]

Pavise

Osprey Men-at-Arm 94: The Swiss At War 1300-1500, pg 16:



Burgundian Wars, 1474-77.

Osprey books are really useful and I particularly like that one, but it's wrong in that particular remark. They tend to be a useful 'starting point' for research but often miss details.

The Swiss were very conservative with weapons, Berne recently (5 years ago) liquidated some pikes they were still holding on to in the city arsenal which ended up on Ebay. I almost bought one.

The Swiss never emphasized guns or crossbows as much as a lot of other armies did, concentrating their strategy on their hard-hitting infantry columns of pikemen and halberdiers; but they did use gunners and crossbowmen as well, they were a very important part of the mix of forces, (typically outside of the main columns, in what were called 'forlorn' hopes') and these men did use pavises, as was common at the time of the Burgundian wars.

These photos are from Grandson Castle where a lot of the loot and weapons from the Burgundian Wars were collected and are now stored. Pavises were used on both sides and Charles the Bolds army during those wars was considered the most sophisticated and well equipped in Europe.

Spoiler

Show

This one is burgundian

Spoiler

Show

Swiss, from the Burgundian Wars


This is a Swiss Pavise from 1445



This Pavise from 1485 is from a part of the Tyrol contest between the Swiss Confederation and Austria, it could be German or Swiss but I think it's Swiss due to the red cross on white background




G

[fusilier]

Surprising how fast they can shoot one of those handgonnes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8

G

Yeah, but he's loading from premeasured chargers, instead of a powder flask. Laying everything out in front of you does help. Also the shortness of the barrel on those old hand gonnes helps a lot, as it greatly reduces the time for ramming. Nevertheless, with a similar amount of preparedness in a static position, like defending a town or castle wall, that's probably pretty close to what could be done in actual fighting.

[fusilier]

that does remind me. I;m resonably certian that at least some cannon in the napoleonic wars were flintlocks. the only pictures i;ve seen are in a naval context, such as here. you can see them agian in the flim Master and commander, where, notably, a main character gets his hand trapped under a flint during the final fight

I know the British did that with their naval cannons (at least by the Napoleonic wars -- I'm not sure when it started) -- it protected the priming powder from water spray. They probably abandoned it for friction primers, when those became available, but I'm not certain. I'm not aware of it being used on land.

[fusilier]

The Swiss never emphasized guns or crossbows as much as a lot of other armies did, concentrating their strategy on their hard-hitting infantry columns of pikemen and halberdiers; but they did use gunners and crossbowmen as well, they were a very important part of the mix of forces, (typically outside of the main columns, in what were called 'forlorn' hopes') and these men did use pavises, as was common at the time of the Burgundian wars.

Galloglaich -- I agree with you on Osprey books, but it was the only book at hand that addressed the subject of pavises.

What are you basing your assertion on? The fact that there are some survival examples from roughly that time period? Some period drawings? Are those surviving examples statistically representational? Are the contemporary drawings even accepted to be accurate?

I see no reason to believe either -- period pictures could be based upon older works of art, and idealized reconstructions, and museums are often crammed full of ceremonial arms and armor that were never used in battle. That's often the reason the items have survived.

Finally, there's no claim that pavises weren't used at all during the conflict, just not in open warfare. If you want to refute that claim, I would like to see some reliable evidence.

[Galloglaich]

Galloglaich -- I agree with you on Osprey books, but it was the only book at hand that addressed the subject of pavises.

Well, fair enough but it's rather thin soup. It's also (as much as I like that particular one) a fairly old Osprey book.

What are you basing your assertion on? The fact that there are some survival examples from roughly that time period? Some period drawings? Are those surviving examples statistically representational? Are the contemporary drawings even accepted to be accurate?

I'm basing it on a lot of research on the Swiss, detailed accounts of the battles, reading may books on Medieval warfare, many hours of discussions with other well informed people about Medieval warfare both in person and on HEMA forums and on websites like Myarmoury which specifically deal with kit, and from personally visiting places like Grandson castle, Bernisches Historisches Museum in Bern, the Landesmuseum in Zurich, and other smaller sites (little castles and Churches) where they have a lot of the weapons and battlefield loot from Switzerland's military heyday, which was all 14th-16th Century pretty much.

And the fact that there are 'some survival examples' from not only the same time period, but that they are from same specific series of (late 15th Century) battles you referred to (in the case of three of the images I posted) which I happened to know were at that museum because I'd been there a long time ago.

I see no reason to believe either -- period pictures could be based upon older works of art, and idealized reconstructions, and museums are often crammed full of ceremonial arms and armor that were never used in battle. That's often the reason the items have survived.

Well do a little reading on this particular museum. It is a collection of artifacts recovered from the battles with Charles the Bold in the Burgundian wars, mostly the battle of Grandson in 1476 and the battle of Nancy. They have all his banners, and the pointy shoes of hundreds of his knights, among other things. The museum in Bern had his gold or silver bathtub, which was also captured in the same war.

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/le-c...-grandson.html

Finally, there's no claim that pavises weren't used at all during the conflict, just not in open warfare. If you want to refute that claim, I would like to see some reliable evidence.

I don't suggest that I can definitely prove it to you here and now, the books I know of which discuss Swiss battlefield organization in that kind of detail aren't available online I don't think (I may check later) and it would take some time to go read through them, find and transcribe relevant passages sufficient to make an airtight case that could convince you.

But I am convinced myself of this and I think I've supplied sufficient counter evidence with some Swiss (and Burgundian) pavises from the period in question. Readers of the thread can make their own decisions, maybe I'm right, maybe you are, maybe we are both wrong. I think the main purpose of this thread is to provide information, which I've tried to do, not to win arguments.

And also on the larger picture - the issue of whether pavises were still widely in use in the 15th Century (and that their use peaked in the 15th). If you look at that excellent Myarmoury thread linked upthread here, you'll note most of the dozens of pavises they depict there are from the 15th or early 16th Century. The reason I believe they were still in use generally in Europe is that the Bohemians who we know used the hell out of 'em, were widely deployed as mercenaries from Northern Poland to southern Hungary. They were the basis of the Hungarian Black Army which I mentioned (and linked to) before, that was one of the biggest military players in Europe at that time.

The real question to me is, why, how did they work. The Bohemian ones used a special construction based on Lithuanian shields, with the central rib and so on, and they all seemed to be made of some kind of composite material of resin, sinew and linen over thick wood (soft fibrous wood, apparently willow in some cases) which may have acted like some kind of modern composite material or it may have just been like the older pavises, in which case you have to wonder how they protected against guns and recurves and heavy crossbows. But one thing I've learned from researching all this stuff, is that these people seem to have known what they were doing more often than not. The image of the ignoramus "Medieval Caveman" that we always see on TV doesn't hold up well in the historical record.

But to me, this is still something of a mystery.

G

[Matthew]

English archers were even often depicted barefoot for maximum adhesion, AFAIR.

I am not sure that is true at all. Some French commentators mentioned that some of the English archers were so poor they went afoot, but I have never heard any evidence turning that around into a positive choice.

Huh, interesting video. It's from the English Warbow Society so presumably it's a legitimate historical technique.

From the society entry requirements, that selfbow has a minimum draw of 70lbs at 32" full draw (my arms won't even reach that far ). I will question what sort of accuracy that technique has though, but if you're just firing into formations, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

That said, the Mongols are renowned for their horse archery and what research I can find suggests their bows had a similarly heavy draw weights, so I presume it's still possible to not need your legs to draw powerful bows (with some technique modification).

Some additional research suggests that English bows were also used mounted, although with some issues as the mounted archer could only really fire sideways effectively - firing forwards as horse archers often did usually resulted in the bow poking the horse, which affected your accuracy and reload times.

My turn for interesting videos: Battlefield kyudo.
While he's using a yumi (Japanese bow) which is designed to be off centre, he doesn't appear to have any trouble drawing or hitting his targets while kneeling.
I can't find any reference to the draw weight of his bow, although war yumi were recorded to have a draw weight of 90lb (I doubt that this bow is that heavy though).

The really heavy bows used by the English War Bow Society are upwards of 120 lbs, which I suppose is why specialist techniques have appeared to deal with the difficulty. By the way, it was apparently early on in the third book that this occurred, when Lord Berrick's men are fighting the brave companions.