Interesting facts you know about medieval warfare?

Users who are viewing this thread

It isn't fake however there is legit skepticism as to whether that would have been possible with the materials they used back in the day. It could be edited but I doubt it.
I never thought it was fake or edited. I was just stating what the generic youtube crowd would say when presented with this video.

I highly doubt that it's edited. I do think that it's a legitimate stunt which requires plenty of practice, but when used on the battlefield with a large quiver of arrows, light armor weighing an archer down and the chaos of the battlefield, especially when the firing line is being overrun, it's just not practical during the period where arrows were required to be properly drawn before piercing through plate armor. It might be possible to be use it on light infantry, but it's still not as practical as drawing a sword.


  It was a very interesting video. As it is already said, very fast technique. And to those who say it's fake: Guys, in reality, nobody knows how EXACTLY people fought. I mean the weapon usage and all that. All of what we know, is gathered from sources (unless someone invented a TARDIS machine and went to a trip down to Medieval). All those "combat historians" and "Medieval weapon experts" use their knowledge of history and some modern melee combat techniques to recreate  combat as better as they can. So, as this video shows one person's understanding of bows, another or a book might present sth else. It doesn't mean that some random guys didn't have anything better to do than shooting arrows in a wrong way.


Sergeant at Arms
Das Knecht said:
I just like to think that nordic warriors were, in general, better fed than the middle-european armies. Why?

Less people to spread disease, less diseases in general because it wasn't a huge pot of people meddling with each others business. Plus, there was always the fish you could get pretty freely.

Probably explains why nordic people were considered tall on the medieval era.

Norvegian population as been almost erradicated by the great plague during the 14th century.
Today Norsies are more Danish than Norwegian.


Sergeant at Arms
DrSane said:
vikings were 5th to 11th century roughly

black death was during the 13th century

For an obvious reason (the name itself) the Viking era began with the plundering of Lindisfarne in 793 and ended indeed during the 11th with the death of Olaf Haraldsson (St Olaf) and later on with the Battle of Stamfordbridge.


Sergeant at Arms
By the way, Dusguesclin one of the most famous French knight was very short 1.50M..

In France at the begining of the 100 years war the knights are wearing chain and ring mails armors, the horses are unarmored so both are an easy kill for a longbow, the plate armor was effective against longbow  but the horse was still a weakness, the fullplate for both the knight and the horse arrived at the end of the 100 years war with the "Gendarmerie d’ordonnance".
And i don't think you have a lot of full plate across the world before that period of time, i do not consider the cataphracts armors like full plates even if both the horse and horsemen are armored from toes to head.


Haha, instead of writing my philosophy essay I am reading facts about medieval warfare xD

But from me... Ancients had a huge impact on the medieval ages on warfare. Take spisa eastern cavalry spear/lance with a leaf-like tip. It was a shorten version of Macedonian sarrisa, for example. Also, Greek sword machira gave birth to Turkish signature sword: jatagan.
Speaking about the armour. Medieval ages as such are rather an era of a chainmail(see Byzantin Cathafracti, just covered with mail, together with horses)  than full plates, especially in the east. There also appeared a lammelar harness, but latter, with the appearance of Mongols under Chingis Chan. But it was rare an expensive(lammelar plates are found in the graves of Kiev kinaz, dukes, rather than common soldiers.)
And armour could not weight that much, same with swords(even those two handed) Simple reason: nobody would use them :smile:. If tripping and falling in battle means that you are dead, who would risk it (no aromour could withstand a thrust from an alwpike, especially if you are nailed to the ground :wink:). There existed armours that heavy, true, BUT... they were only for tournaments, not for fighting.
To the bows: they were effective as an anti-infrantry weapon, since infrantry was very poorly equipped in terms of armour (Byzantine troopers from the period of the rule of Nikeporos II Phokas had only a padded jacked). Their defense was all their shields. But shields aint perfect, and a good arrow from post-Hun bow could penetrate it. But crossbows, funny, they packed a punch. As much as they were considered unholy and forbidden by the Papacy at one point :grin:


Sergeant at Arms
Ivor said:
... As much as they were considered unholy and forbidden by the Papacy at one point :grin:

You're right - crossbows were banned by Pope Innocent II from being used against Christians. I think it was because suddenly lords were much more likely to be killed as the bolts would penetrate their armour.
Richard the Lionheart was the one who reintroduced them I believe - and ironically he died from being shot by a crossbow as his opponents readopted the weapons to counter against his use of the darn thing! :razz:
Top Bottom