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

[fusilier]

In the spring I read a book called "Mercenaries and their Masters", by Michael Mallet. It's about Condottiere and is mostly focused on the 15th century. I remembered that I hadn't returned it to the library yet (for some reason the due date is December -- and I'm not even taking any courses this semester -- suckers!), so I gave it a quick glance to see what he had to say about projectile weapons during the period.

The book does not go into the technical details, but it was interesting. He notes that as late as the 1430s there were still some English longbowmen in service in Northern Italy. They were better paid than crossbowmen, but he points out this is because they were still mounted, not because their weapons were seen as more valuable. He also states that crossbows were pretty much ubiquitous in Italy at the time. Then he talks about hand guns, and there was something that I hadn't taken much notice of the first time I read it.

At the beginning of the 15th century hand guns are depicted in Italy, but almost always in conjunction with the defense of towns. By the middle of the century they are being used in open battles though, and they steadily replaced crossbows through the century. Part of this replacement may be due to hand guns being cheaper to produce than crossbows (and this source claims they are cheaper), but there is circumstantial evidence of their effectiveness. Captured hand gunners were typically executed on the spot, which he interprets as a testament to their effectiveness, and not simply abhorrence at the use of new technology. Also, in the middle of 15th century, when war threatened, Milan boasted that it could field 20,000 hand gunners. This was undoubtedly exaggeration for the purposes of propaganda. Nevertheless they boasted of their number of hand guns, and not their number of crossbows.

[fusilier]

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

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

. . .

G.

I have no dog in this fight, but I did take a quick glance at that article (thanks for sharing by the way). While it's not obvious, according to that article butted mail was used historically:

The next innovation for mail armour was the development of the mail and plates (sometimes called combined mail) construction. . . . Butted mail was more often used in this construction than in regular mail, yet riveted mail was still the most common. . . .

It is implicit in this statement that butted mail was used in the construction of regular mail. It is also implicit that it was uncommon, but I could find no claim as to how uncommon it would have been.

So tests with butted mail aren't necessarily historically inaccurate, but they may not be good representations of what would be typical. Note that in addition to pointing out the use of poor rivets and butted mail in some tests, there are several other factors mentioned as to why those tests were poor. So exactly how period butted mail stacks up against period riveted mail isn't clear.

Galloglaich, this leads back to the question I asked about the ratios of cranequin or windlass bows to other kinds. A cranequin 1200lbs crossbow may have excellent performance, but can we take it as typical of a crossbow of the 1400s? Not that we shouldn't study it, but when thinking about battlefield effectiveness, we might want to consider more common weapons in our analyses. Rather than the best possible example we can find.

[Brainfart]

'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.

Funny that you should mention this. I've done some preliminary research into reconstructions of traditional Chinese sword arts as well, and they've arrived at similar conclusions. This is also why there's been a fair amount of discussion about filling in the gaps (i.e. body mechanics etc that aren't explicitly stated in the treatises) by borrowing from other traditions.

In some treatises, it's pretty clear as to how you're supposed to hold a stance:


And no, they aren't just a bunch of pictures. Methinks you've been ignoring the captions.

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

The first art of your assertion is demonstrably false, and the second doesn't even make a significant difference. If you aren't going to manage to void a blow, a couple of milliseconds isn't going to make a difference.

The way I was taught to use the gathering step was to push off with the rear leg and land with the forward one without transferring weight to the rear foot. Jack Dempsey mentions the 'falling step' in his book and it appears to be a fairly similar concept, just without the violence of execution since a sword blow doesn't need the same kind of motive force from the body to lend power to it.

[Galloglaich]

There is no doubt handgonnes and arquebusses were the hot new thing in the late 15th Century.

The problem with using them outside of fortifications was that they were slow to set up and 'delicate' to use (in the sense that you had to be careful not to screw up).

The use of firearms spread from Eastern Europe. Bohemian Hussites addressed this vulnerability problem in the 1420s by combining gunners (and crossbowmen) with wagons defended by heavy infantry. In the mid 15th Century the Hungarian "Black Army" was making widespread use of firearms, as many as 1/3 of their army were gunners. By this time gunners were being protected by halberds and pikes.

By the end of the 15th Century the matchlock arquebus was a somewhat standardized design, it was easier, safer, and quicker to use than the earlier handgonne, Czech pistala or hand-culverin types, and it began to be possible to train gunners systematically in a relatively short period of time. This made them very useful indeed, (and this did not seem to be the case with heavy crossbows or longbows, or early firearms, which tended to require users recruited from places with a culture of their use.)

Crossbows were still used on the front-line alongside arquebusses until the 1520s or thereabouts. as someone pointed out, Cortez had as many crossbows as arquebusses, for example (about a dozen of each in his original force). By then the first Muskets were coming online, and wheellocks were beccoming available which made the use (and therefore the training for) guns much easier.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I have no dog in this fight, but I did take a quick glance at that article (thanks for sharing by the way). While it's not obvious, according to that article butted mail was used historically:



It is implicit in this statement that butted mail was used in the construction of regular mail. It is also implicit that it was uncommon, but I could find no claim as to how uncommon it would have been.

He's talking about Russia there. Butted mail wasn't used in Western Europe (nor was mail and plate).

So tests with butted mail aren't necessarily historically inaccurate, but they may not be good representations of what would be typical. Note that in addition to pointing out the use of poor rivets and butted mail in some tests, there are several other factors mentioned as to why those tests were poor. So exactly how period butted mail stacks up against period riveted mail isn't clear.

I disagree, as far as I know they haven't found any butted mail that was in use in Europe before 1900 AD. If you (or anyone) knows of any please post it here.

Galloglaich, this leads back to the question I asked about the ratios of cranequin or windlass bows to other kinds. A cranequin 1200lbs crossbow may have excellent performance, but can we take it as typical of a crossbow of the 1400s? Not that we shouldn't study it, but when thinking about battlefield effectiveness, we might want to consider more common weapons in our analyses. Rather than the best possible example we can find.

It's a valid point, but I've addressed this before (upthread, a couple of times including a list of all the types of crossbows I am aware of), they were relatively rare, so were 125 lbs draw longbows. So were guns in this period (at least durign the first half of the 15th Century). But we do have records on how many were used, and it's not insignificant. One Teutonic order document from the 15th Century for example lists (roughly) 4000 knottelholcz or regular wood stave crossbows, 1500 Steigbügelarmbrust or stirrup crossbows, and 1000 cranequins in the Teutonic order armory I think at Koningsburg. On campaign (during the annual reysa or raids) they specifically used the latter, the knottelholcz were for garrisons and levies during larger battles.

If I have time later this weekend I'll scan some excerpts from my books at home on this and post them here. But there are a lot of records from armouries from many parts of Europe, from the Swiss Confederacy, from Italy, Bohemia, many parts of Germany, the Crusader states, and in France and England too I'm sure though I haven't read as much about those regions.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Also, in the middle of 15th century, when war threatened, Milan boasted that it could field 20,000 hand gunners. This was undoubtedly exaggeration for the purposes of propaganda. Nevertheless they boasted of their number of hand guns, and not their number of crossbows.

They may well have been exaggerating for the reasons you state, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out either, Milan had the greatest capacity for making steel probably in the world at that time, I know after one battle in the early 16th Century they were able to re-arm something like 15,000 soldiers in a matter of weeks.

G.

[fusilier]

There is no doubt handgonnes and arquebusses were the hot new thing in the late 15th Century.

The problem with using them outside of fortifications was that they were slow to set up and 'delicate' to use (in the sense that you had to be careful not to screw up).

The use of firearms spread from Eastern Europe. Bohemian Hussites addressed this vulnerability problem in the 1420s by combining gunners (and crossbowmen) with wagons defended by heavy infantry. In the mid 15th Century the Hungarian "Black Army" was making widespread use of firearms, as many as 1/3 of their army were gunners. By this time gunners were being protected by halberds and pikes.

By the end of the 15th Century the matchlock arquebus was a somewhat standardized design, it was easier, safer, and quicker to use than the earlier handgonne, Czech pistala or hand-culverin types, and it began to be possible to train gunners systematically in a relatively short period of time. This made them very useful indeed, (and this did not seem to be the case with heavy crossbows or longbows, or early firearms, which tended to require users recruited from places with a culture of their use.)

Crossbows were still used on the front-line alongside arquebusses until the 1520s or thereabouts. as someone pointed out, Cortez had as many crossbows as arquebusses, for example. By then the first Muskets were coming online, and wheellocks were beccoming available which made the use (and therefore the training for) guns much easier.

G.

Field fortifications seem to have played an increasingly large part during the 15th century in Italian warfare. This may have made it a bit easier to field handgunners outside of fortified towns.

Crossbow training seems to have been widespread in the civic militias in Italy at this time. All Venetians were required to train with crossbows, and of course Genovese crossbowmen were well known throughout Europe.

I think Cortez had significantly more crossbows than arquebuses. While the Venetians had banned crossbows from their galleys by 1520, the Spanish were a little bit slower to replace them in their navy (especially those bound for the Indes). Resupply of powder would have been a serious problem in Mexico. Even then they did run low on crossbow bolts. If I remember the story correctly, they handed out a few examples of bolts to their indigenous allies, and asked if they could make copies of at least the shafts. Within a week they had something like 40,000 very well made bolts some with cast copper heads! (Don't quote me on that, without checking up on the details).

On the other hand, when Columbus was organizing one of his later expeditions, his troops were armed with equal numbers of arquebuses and crossbows.

Wheellocks were not used by common troops -- ever. During the 30 years' war (and probably a little bit earlier), they were used by specialist infantry, but that was still uncommon. Cavalry pistols on the other hand were made possible by the use of wheellocks. Cavalry is expensive anyway, and wheellocks were very expensive. The infantryman's firearm was typically a matchlock until about 1700.

However, what I was really remarking upon was the apparent effectiveness of the earlier hand guns, which seems to be out of proportion with the technical details of such weapons being discussed here. They being cheaper doesn't seem to be sufficient to explain the reputation that they developed.

[Galloglaich]

Field fortifications seem to have played an increasingly large part during the 15th century in Italian warfare. This may have made it a bit easier to field handgunners outside of fortified towns.

Yes that's true you seem to see a lot of field earthworks reinforced with sticks and those big bundles of straw etc. in period art from this time.

Crossbow training seems to have been widespread in the civic militias in Italy at this time. All Venetians were required to train with crossbows, and of course Genovese crossbowmen were well known throughout Europe.

Yes! But this is another thing I keep trying to point out in this thread; these towns were the source of the culture of crossbows. Just like Wales (and later, various English towns) was the source for the Culture of longbows and parts of Bohemia and Germany and certain Italian cities were the source of the culture of early firearms. There is a very persistant cliche about the Middle Ages that militia were incompetent and weak compared to professional mercenaries or knights.

The reality is that militias were the professional mercenaries in most cases and often defeated knights. Specifically regarding crossbows, it's another (more or less correct) cliche that many Crossbowmen were recruited from Genoa. Well, these were not trained in a professional mercenary school! They were the town militia. Same with the famous "Swiss mercenaries". They were all originally militia; very very good militia. It wasn't until Maximillian I invented the Landsknechts circa 1500, who were designed specifically to emulate the Swiss Reislauffer (militia) that you see something like professional mercenary schools.

I think Cortez had significantly more crossbows than arquebuses.

According to Bernal Diaz, in his original force of 500 men, Cortez had 12 Arquebusses and 13 Crossbows. Most of his force were like Diaz, Rotoeleros.

While the Venetians had banned crossbows from their galleys by 1520, the Spanish were a little bit slower to replace them in their navy (especially those bound for the Indes). Resupply of powder would have been a serious problem in Mexico. Even then they did run low on crossbow bolts. If I remember the story correctly, they handed out a few examples of bolts to their indigenous allies, and asked if they could make copies of at least the shafts. Within a week they had something like 40,000 very well made bolts some with cast copper heads! (Don't quote me on that, without checking up on the details).

That is very interesting!

On a related note, I just read a couple of days ago how an artisan captured by the Lithuanians in the Baltic saved his own life by promising to teach them how to make crossbows of the Central European type.

Wheellocks were not used by common troops -- ever. During the 30 years' war (and probably a little bit earlier), they were used by specialist infantry, but that was still uncommon. Cavalry pistols on the other hand were made possible by the use of wheellocks. Cavalry is expensive anyway, and wheellocks were very expensive. The infantryman's firearm was typically a matchlock until about 1700.

I stand corrected. i wasn't aware of that, it's interesting. But do you agree the matchlock was much easier to use, and to train for, than the hand-culverin?

However, what I was really remarking upon was the apparent effectiveness of the earlier hand guns, which seems to be out of proportion with the technical details of such weapons being discussed here. They being cheaper doesn't seem to be sufficient to explain the reputation that they developed.

I know you like early firearms, but the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow all also had fearsome reputations as well...

G.

[fusilier]

He's talking about Russia there. Butted mail wasn't used in Western Europe (nor was mail and plate).

It's not entirely clear from the context that he is referring only to Russia, although rereading it, it may indeed be the case. Also, at no point in the article does he say that butted mail was not used in Western Europe.

I disagree, as far as I know they haven't found any butted mail that was in use in Europe before 1900 AD. If you (or anyone) knows of any please post it here.

Note 59:

Butted mail is commonly used by modern re-enactors but historically it rarely had a place on the battlefield. It offered virtually no protection against the most common threats, i.e. arrows and spears. Even the earliest mail seems to have been made of riveted links

The note is in reference to the "flawed" tests. He does not say that butted mail had "no place on the battlefield" and he does not make any claim that it was *never* used in Western Europe. I'm just pointing out that the source can't be read to say that butted mail was never used in Western Europe, only that it was rarely used in Western Europe. It may be that the author simply doesn't have enough information to make a definitive statement.

It's a valid point, but I've addressed this before (upthread, a couple of times including a list of all the types of crossbows I am aware of), they were relatively rare, so were 125 lbs draw longbows.

Exactly my point! I think it's interesting and useful to look at the technological extremes of these weapons -- but that we should not assume that such weapons were typical. [I'm not actually asking you for more detailed information, I was just linking back to a previous statement that had a similar line of reasoning]

[Galloglaich]

The note is in reference to the "flawed" tests. He does not say that butted mail had "no place on the battlefield" and he does not make any claim that it was *never* used in Western Europe. I'm just pointing out that the source can't be read to say that butted mail was never used in Western Europe, only that it was rarely used in Western Europe. It may be that the author simply doesn't have enough information to make a definitive statement.

Yes, the truth is, so far we haven't found any butted mail that was historically used as armor in Europe (at least that I know of). But they could find some tomorrow, so Dan has to be careful making a public statement in an article. I'm more reckless But I think I'm on pretty safe ground.

Incidentally, Dan Howard, who wrote that article for Myarmoury, is a kind of a rival of mine, he is doing the GURPS lowtech combat system for GURPS 4, soon to be released (or so I gather). It will probably be pretty good.


G.

[Spiryt]

The fact that no butted mail was ever found in Europe is kind of his mantra too.

And they were making some really interesting stuff in Russia, like very light mails from about 2,5 cm wide links.

But it was of course almost only ceremonial, so I would guess that butted ones were too.

[fusilier]

Yes! But this is another thing I keep trying to point out in this thread; these towns were the source of the culture of crossbows. Just like Wales 9and later, various English towns) was the source for the Culture of longbows and parts of Bohemia and Germany and certain Italian cities were the source of the culture of early firearms. There is a very persistant cliche about the Middle Ages that militia were incompetent and weak compared to professional mercenaries or knights. The reality is that militias were the professional mercenaries in most cases and often defeated knights. Specifically regarding crossbows, it's another (more or less correct) cliche that many Crossbowmen were recruited from Genoa. Well, these were not trained in a professional mercenary school! They were the town militia. Same with the famous "Swiss mercenaries". They were all originally militia; very very good militia. It wasn't until Maximillian I invented the Landsknechts circa 1500, who were designed specifically to emulate the Swiss Reislauffer (militia) that you see something like professional mercenary schools.

No need to convince me, your arguments on these points are very good. With specific reference to Northern Italy, there was a distinction between mercenaries and the town militias, but they became increasingly blurred. With the mercenaries basically turning into standing armies (as it was generally easier and safer to renew their services), and being augmented by locally formed units.

According to Bernal Diaz, in his original force of 500 men, Cortez had 12 Arquebusses and 13 Crossbows. Most of his force were like Diaz, Rotoeleros.



That is very interesting!

I know his force was augmented by Navarez's troops but I don't what their dispositions were. The story about the manufacture of crossbow bolts was in a discussion about native production networks, and I think there was some skepticism about the numbers in the source that I read. Also I may have conflated them even more. Unfortunately I do not have my sources in front of me, and I don't think I will be able to track them down anytime soon.

I stand corrected. i wasn't aware of that, it's interesting. But do you agree the matchlock was much easier to use, and to train for, than the hand-culverin?


I know you like early firearms, but the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow all also had fearsome reputations as well...

G.

Yes, I agree absolutely.

And yes I'm aware that I may have a bias, but others like the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow, so I may not be the only one with a bias.

I was remarking that the circumstantial evidence seems to be that early firearms had a pretty fierce reputation -- also they started replacing other projectile weapons (which is a long transition of over a century, but still it's a transition). The transition may be explained by economic factors (although that doesn't rule out other factors), but the reputation cannot be explained by economic factors alone.

[fusilier]

Yes, the truth is, so far we haven't found any butted mail that was historically used as armor in Europe (at least that I know of). But they could find some tomorrow, so Dan has to be careful making a public statement in an article. I'm more reckless But I think I'm on pretty safe ground.

OK! ;-) As long as your honest about it, I'm inclined to take your word.

Incidentally, Dan Howard, who wrote that article for Myarmoury, is a kind of a rival of mine, he is doing the GURPS lowtech combat system for GURPS 4, soon to be released (or so I gather). It will probably be pretty good.

I never got into GURPS 4, but the GURPS 3 edition of that book is good -- although it's not a combat system, it extends some things like the armor rules.

[Galloglaich]

No need to convince me, your arguments on these points are very good. With specific reference to Northern Italy, there was a distinction between mercenaries and the town militias, but they became increasingly blurred. With the mercenaries basically turning into standing armies (as it was generally easier and safer to renew their services), and being augmented by locally formed units.

Of course there was a difference between condotierri and militia, my point is most mercenaries got their training as militia. Just like most blackwater or executive outcomes operatives got their training in the US or UK Army.

And yes I'm aware that I may have a bias, but others like the longbow, the recurve, and the crossbow, so I may not be the only one with a bias.

We need at least one of each for balance :)

I was remarking that the circumstantial evidence seems to be that early firearms had a pretty fierce reputation -- also they started replacing other projectile weapons (which is a long transition of over a century, but still it's a transition). The transition may be explained by economic factors (although that doesn't rule out other factors), but the reputation cannot be explained by economic factors alone.

They were dangerous, they impress the hell out of me in youtube videos.

My favorite (apologies if you've seen it before):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE

G.

[Galloglaich]

I never got into GURPS 4, but the GURPS 3 edition of that book is good -- although it's not a combat system, it extends some things like the armor rules.

I lost track of GURPS about 10 years ago but people tell me it's one of the good systems for realistic combat.

G.

[Subotei]

The transition may be explained by economic factors (although that doesn't rule out other factors).....

Yes -the very thought was occuring to me earlier. In an army already supplied with cannons for siege work etc, the cost and logistical advantage of sourcing perhaps one extra wagon of powder (and a few barrels of shot) , as to say three or four wagons of bolts begins to make economic sense, once you have a trained nucleus of troops capable of using the weapon. The trade off of effectiveness/cost/reliabilty has always had a place in warfare.

[Karoht]

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

Western European Martial Arts. Which is the art I assume we've been discussing all this time. If you want specifics, I've been mostly Sword and Shield (Heater and Round and Buckler), Axe and Shield, or Two-Handed Sword focused, in a one-on-one arena style combat format. But for reference, Sword and Shield or Sword and Open Hand are kind of my specialties.
Prior to that, I've taken Kendo for about 2 years, Fencing (epee) for 3, Judo, Karate, Tai Kwon Do, and Boxing. I was a simultaneous orange belt in Karate and Judo at age 6.

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

Okay, I'll explain it.
If I want to go forward, I need forward inertia. If the majority of my body weight is over my lead foot, then moving forward will take relatively less energy. Also, the muscles are primed for the 'push off' or spring forward. Going backwards however, my muscles and body mass is oriented the the wrong way.

Balanced stance gives you the option to go ANY direction quickly, without having to shift your body mass first.

Psyx:

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.

I have to agree with Psyx on that. Forward heavy stance, especially with something as movement heavy as sword combat, is really not going to get you anywhere unless you are being taught rank and file shield wall tactics, at which point they are probably also teaching you to brace the wall against the push.

Karate taught us to have that tough forward oriented stance. It was to prevent trips and to advance forward to strike. Judo was all about balancing your mass and avoiding or grappling with the guy trying to take you off your feet.
Fencing teaches a forward mass stance, because you aren't really taught to retreat. You are (mostly) taught to advance and strike faster than the other guy.
Different arts teach different things for different purposes. Thats the big thing you should take away from this.


Psyx:

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.

Bang on Psyx.
Survival trumps killing someone else. Victory isn't victory if you don't live to drink a beer with your buds afterwards.
Speaking from experience, mobility has won me more fights than being planted.
REALLY GOOD mobility teaches you to defend yourself by simply voiding, or turning your target profile, turning your body into a blow to take advantage of armor hardpoints and how to take a blow but turn it to your advantage as well. This part I'm not so great at (comparitively), but one of my students uses his forearm bracer to greater effect defensively than some people use large shield.

[Xuc Xac]

Fencing teaches a forward mass stance, because you aren't really taught to retreat. You are (mostly) taught to advance and strike faster than the other guy.
...
Survival trumps killing someone else. Victory isn't victory if you don't live to drink a beer with your buds afterwards.

That's why kendo and European fencing aren't really combat arts: they train you and reward you for actions that would get you killed in a real fight. In a sporting match, you win if you hit the other guy first, even if it's by a split second. In a real fight, the guy who got stabbed second is just as dead as the guy who got stabbed first.

[fusilier]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE

G.

Great, now I want an arquebus. :-) I got too many reenacting impressions as it is . . .

[Caustic Soda]

@ Spiryt & Galloglaich:

So (comparatively) widespread use of butted mail is a relatively new phenomenon, made possible mainly because people at Ren Fairs aren't actually trying to kill people, and some people backdated the use of butted mail?

If that is the case, couldn't you say that the Ren Fair people who believed butted mail to be widely used in the past were committing the same kind of mistake as Rennaissance artists depicting plate mail and steel breastplates in the Trojan War?

Seems oddly fitting, in a way.

[Storm Bringer]

@ Spiryt & Galloglaich:

So (comparatively) widespread use of butted mail is a relatively new phenomenon, made possible mainly because people at Ren Fairs aren't actually trying to kill people, and some people backdated the use of butted mail?

If that is the case, couldn't you say that the Ren Fair people who believed butted mail to be widely used in the past were committing the same kind of mistake as Rennaissance artists depicting plate mail and steel breastplates in the Trojan War?

Seems oddly fitting, in a way.

I was under the impression that those artists knew (or, at least, thier socity knew), that the romans didn't wear plate armour. they were just re-casting a classic tale with then-contempory stylings.

[Spiryt]

I was under the impression that those artists knew (or, at least, thier socity knew), that the romans didn't wear plate armour. they were just re-casting a classic tale with then-contempory stylings.

Maybe some knew, most definitely didn't.

Just take a look at any Internet boards, movies, or whatever and horribly absurd images of WWII tanks, weapons and uniforms...

And it was freaking 70 years ago, there are pictures, movies, documentation, manuals, technical plans and all from that period.

How was medieval or renaissance man supposed to know how exactly it all looked 1500 years before his life ?

I'm pretty sure Shakespeare wrote something about clock ticking in Julius Caesar ?

[Psyx]

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

I'm pretty sure nobody involved in the thread believes that any more. Hopefully.

And no, they aren't just a bunch of pictures. Methinks you've been ignoring the captions.

They don't help much a lot of the time. It's building a fighting system from practically scratch. And a lot of things can creep in that bear no relevance to reality sometimes.

The first art of your assertion is demonstrably false, and the second doesn't even make a significant difference.

Erm... ok; a couple of examples: Stand on one leg. Now move it. You have to hop to do so. Having no point of contact with the floor is also not generally a good idea.

As for the second point; The best way to get this home would be to try a tango/salsa class, and try moving your feet in the required manner without weight shifting. It makes a significant difference.

Additionally; what about the other points raised: ie balance on somewhere that's not a practice hall, et cetera?

[Yora]

To get back to a question I had before the crossbow week:

If you're a master of both armed and unarmed martial arts, and you have a dagger, a sword, a spear, and a staff at hand, and you're attacked by people who want to kill you, and you don't really care if any of them die: Is there any reason to face them unarmed instead of taking up a weapon?
As fun as kung fu movies are and how spectacular many demonstrations look, it just doesn't seem a good idea to fight unarmed, if you have any other options.

[tyckspoon]

Is there any reason to face them unarmed instead of taking up a weapon?
As fun as kung fu movies are and how spectacular many demonstrations look, it just doesn't seem a good idea to fight unarmed, if you have any other options.

None at all. There may be some question as to which of your available weapons is best used for the situation, but they will all be better than no weapon.

[Galloglaich]

I'm pretty sure nobody involved in the thread believes that any more. Hopefully.

Neither of you have come even close to convincing me yet. I must be stupid.

G.

[Galloglaich]

@ Spiryt & Galloglaich:

So (comparatively) widespread use of butted mail is a relatively new phenomenon, made possible mainly because people at Ren Fairs aren't actually trying to kill people, and some people backdated the use of butted mail?

If that is the case, couldn't you say that the Ren Fair people who believed butted mail to be widely used in the past were committing the same kind of mistake as Rennaissance artists depicting plate mail and steel breastplates in the Trojan War?

Seems oddly fitting, in a way.

Yeah I think there is some truth in that statement. The only difference is that the artists in question were depicting real armor and weapons of some era, which is not something you see much in a Ren Faire (at least not in a US Ren Faire)

G.

[a_humble_lich]

Neither of you have come even close to convincing me yet. I must be stupid.

I think the question is more what you are calling a "flat shot." We can easily calculate a lower limit to the amount a bolt will drop. At 150 yards, if we ignore air resistance and say a crossbow bolt travels at the speed of sound (which is an upper limit, I don't think even crossbow fanatics would claim supersonic bolts) we get that the bolt will drop about 4 yards. This is twice the height of a person. But it is still a very small angle (about 1.5 degrees). So the shot can't really be considered flat in that it does drop a significant amount, but the angle is still small.

With more realistic numbers the angle will go up significantly. But I feel confident in saying that the bolt will drop at least 4 yards unless the bolt is supersonic. (In theory if the bolt could get significant lift and make this lower, but I feel that air resistance should be much larger than lift)

[Spiryt]

65 m/s is pretty sensible velocity of ~80g bolt from decently heavy crossbow.

With lighter bolts, you could certainly get higher, but not 340 m/s, certainly.

And actually, the rate of velocity decrease would be very important here.

Bolts generally would loose it slower than arrows, but still pretty quickly compared to many other objects.

[a_humble_lich]

I agree completely, 340 m/s is ridiculous, and air resistance is very important. I was trying to find an absolute lower limit and show that even that was fairly high. If I have time, I'll try to do a more accurate calculation.