Quick question:

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Bellum

Bellum

Master Knight
I was surprised when I read that arrows and bolts were so effective on this thread. Most other sources I've known (history channel) have said otherwise. I'm not doubting you though, as many of you seem to have practical experience.

My question is that, if these weapons were so ineffective against armor, what exactly was the point of investing so heavily in them for warfare?
 
Precisely. You still have a huge amount of people on the battlefield not equipped to such a degree that arrows/bolts were ineffectual. And beyond that, even the -chance- of hurting someone from a distance is better than no chance at all. Take a potshot and then fall back to let the fighting men do their work. If you're lucky, you killed some of your enemy.

But, as was mentioned, you just have to keep in mind that a medieval battlefield did not consist of thousands of men all equipped with the best armour. I'd certainly invest in crossbows to kill 200 levy troops, even if it still left me with 50 knights and 140 men-at-arms to deal with, wouldn't you?

 
Merentha said:
Most people didn't wear heavy armor, they couldn't afford it.  The bulk of the army was often a peasant levy which was largely unarmored.   
Click to expand...

And even though they're unarmored, untrained, unprofessional "soldiers", they're still men and can kill. Lower their numbers and you're closer to winning the battle.  And as has been discussed extensively concerning Agincourt and other battles, arrows may not kill the armored men, but they will still kill the horses on which they ride.  (Now I'm venturing more into slightly educated opinion here) And the horse was half, if not more, of what gave the knight such power and "mastery" on the field.

Then there might always be teh freak incident in which the arrows/bolts do actually kill the heavily armored man.


And I believe that Damien just said basically the same thing, hehe  :smile:
 
And then there's the morale factor to consider. Even though in actual fact only a handful of armoured men are being killed by lucky shots, the rest of them are still hearing the screams, feeling the impact against their armour, hearing the arrows whiz by, etc. It's very unnerving to be shot at without being able to do anything in return.

For the lightly armoured men this is even more true, as those will be lacking in the training and perhaps the experience that lets the professional warriors endure this.

Anyway, although statements such as these are hard to substantiate from the sources we have, it seems very reasonable to me to assume that a force of soldiers that has been shot at by arrows for a period of time will have much less stomach for the melee fight to come than a fresh force would.
 
+battles take a long time so if injured even the heavilly armed soldier would die of a wound
 
In the Byzantine Empire they were used as much as todays "suppressing fire".  Their mounted archers were trained mainly for volume of fire.  The archers would pour on a high volume of fire keeping the enemy focused on protecting themselves from arrows while their lancers closed to contact.
 
ranged warfare became very important because it allowed for you to be able to kill without a chance of dying. Some people invested heavily...(look at the freaking Italians...and their giant pavise shields and stuff.) Mainly its so you can kill without a chance of dieing. And emphasis...of stuff mentioned above, it thins out the ranks...which causes formations to break. After that things can become a turkey shoot :grin:
 
Ezias said:
Then there might always be teh freak incident in which the arrows/bolts do actually kill the heavily armored man.
Click to expand...

Luck's a *****

Haroldsm.jpg



and in the case of crossbows, gonnes, arquebuses, and all the way to modern assault rifles, these ranged weapons were much simpler to master than longbows, axes, horses, lances, et cetera. This means that large forces of ranged troops could be assembled quickly, who would probably live longer than their pitchfork-wielding brothers on the front lines.
 
Oh really? I always though melee troops were a lot easier to levy, because archers needed to be trained to fire their bow, and spearmen don't need training per se.
 
You don't need much training to learn how to pull back a strong with a stick on it. With just 1 day of training most people can become very good at archery I think.  And yes, spears are a relatively simple weapon to learn how to use -- but only to the minimal effectiveness. The simpleness and effectiveness of the spear is the reason why for thousands of years it has always been an important part of any military force. And as with the bow, It's easy and quick to learn the basics, but to master is very hard.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the spear, I'm not a re-enactor at all so I guess I don't really know so much as I'm thinking that that's the case :smile:
 
well I wasn't thinking of well so much as being able to point in the general direction of the enemy.  If it wasn't hard to become an expert with heavy bows than the longbowmen wouldn't have had to train much of their lives for it :smile:

I wasn't trying to say that they can become super good real fast, just good enough to get the job done.
 
Well, a question then in regards to armies which revolved around the bow as a weapon. I can assume why earlier steppe people like the scythians did so well - armor wasn't as up to the challenge as it was later on, but what about Parthians/Sassanids, Arabs, and most of all, Mongols? Did the composite bow make the difference there, or did they do away with armored foes by up and personal melee?

 
They peppered their opponents with arrows, thus killing their horses and demoralising them, and then lanced them with their heavy cavalry, all the while using vastly superior methods of battlefield communication.  Apparently.
 
PLus remember what was said earlier int eh thread, not the whole army would be wearing good armor. And you don't have to totally destroy an army in order to defeat it.

Also, though I'm definately not sure on this point, i think that the mongolians did tend to have heavy casualties in the campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Totalgarbage
Reducing the headshot damage multiplier from ranged attacks in singleplayer
Replies
6
Views
381
JunKeteer
JunKeteer
Corbul
Open A question about older versions
Replies
0
Views
277
Corbul
Corbul
SP - Economy Comments on changes to the in-game pricing system and revenue expenditure
Replies
0
Views
226
citcav hoplite
Back
Top Bottom