Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The best medieval unit

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Poll Question: The Best unit
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
39 [34.21%]
6 [5.26%]
20 [17.54%]
14 [12.28%]
0 [0.00%]
8 [7.02%]
4 [3.51%]
2 [1.75%]
0 [0.00%]
21 [18.42%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
  Quote Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The best medieval unit
    Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 23:06
Originally posted by Evildoer

His Majesty Landsknektface has trolled "trolling again?" without bringing forth any evidence to disprove my claim. I suggest His Majesty bring some proofs before trolling. 

"Landsknektface"?

Your profile states that you were born in 1987, but you act more like a twelve-year-old.  Your posting style is genuinely immature.  You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and you talk a lot of smack--the typical "keyboard warrior", in fact.

In any case, why must I bring forth evidence to disprove your claim, when you haven't presented any evidence to support it?

 

 

 



Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
Back to Top
I/eye View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 498
  Quote I/eye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2004 at 01:40
Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

Originally posted by I/eye

range isn't the only measurement of performance..

composite bows were more complicated to make and maintain, but they made up for this with better accuracy and piercing power..

What are your sources for the supposedly better "piercing power" of the composite bow over the longbow?

http://www.warfog.net/books/wave/waveappe/japweapon/일본군무 기체계.htm

it says of two ways to improve the bow, enlarging it is the simple way to do it but the vibration of the arrow becomes irregular and so becomes inaccurate and loses piercing power at long range, whereas composite bow has its own cons, the building process and the maintenence.



Edited by I/eye
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
  Quote demon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2004 at 18:34

eye, the link doesn't work, primary because Korean letter is included which prevents computers without korean characters installed to enter the link.  Try for another one.

EDIT: so many anger over nothing has caught my attention.  So I decided to make a small research.  Keyword: longbow composite bow.  here is what I found:

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/thirskbowmen/bow.htm

The composite bow gives superior accuracy, velocity, and distance in comparison to the longbow

http://www.historicalweapons.com/bowandarrow.html Seems to have a good summery on British longbows

The best longbows were made of yew. The staves were cut in winter when no sap was running, from the junction of the inner heartwood and the outer sapwood. The staves were seasoned and worked on gradually over a period of three to four years. Today only six longbows survive, none from the "golden age" and sources do not agree on the dimensions. Most give the length as about 70in. with a drawing pull of 75-100lbs. The arrows were between 27-36in. long. A trained archer could shoot 12 arrows a minute, but some sources say that the most skilled archers could fire twice this number. The arrow could wound at 250 yards, kill at 100 yards and penetrate armor at 60 yards.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/manet/394/page23f.htm

Composite bow (70-160 lbs) and thumb ring could kill at 300 yds with max range >600 yds. Thumb ring allowed a sharper release, increasing range and velocity although requiring greater experience and practice on campaign carried 2 - 4 bows, 60-400 arrows of various types



Edited by demon
Grrr..
Back to Top
Abyssmal Fiend View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2004
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
  Quote Abyssmal Fiend Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2004 at 18:54
Originally posted by Mangudai

Originally posted by SovietJesus

Bah, sucked? You're talking about the Teutonic Order itself, one of probally the hardiest groups of men ever so devoted to religion, helping hold back the tide of the Muslims. Now combine skill, power, devotion, and German stubborness, and you have one hell of a fighting force. They weren't as good as some others, but they didn't suck, either.

Muslims? The teutonic knights mainly fought the balts, as you know. And they were heavily defeated by the balts (prussians, lithuanians) in various battles

 

Shhh. The Lithuanians count as Muslims. ^^ I knew that was wrong before I even posted, I was waiting to see if anyone knew anything about them.

Still trolling, I see?

Turkish and Mongol bows were very similar, as I'm sure you know. 

 

Arrows don't equal bows, my friend. If you put a sharpened stick into a bow, and a bodkin arrow into another, and shoot at the same thing, the bodkin will do more damage. Keyword: arrow. Not bow. The statement you responded to had nothing to do with bows.



Edited by SovietJesus

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Back to Top
Evildoer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 434
  Quote Evildoer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 15:23

I am asking you bring evidence for your statement (intended to discredit mine) that Turkish bows are similar to that of Mongols. - Calling something "trolling" without even presenting an evidence of your own to support your own "trolling" statement and counter the opponent's "trolling" is indeed "trolling".   

The statement you wrote above would serve as an excellent description of yourself. No offense meant.



Edited by Evildoer
Back to Top
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
  Quote Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 16:48

Originally posted by SovietJesus

Arrows don't equal bows, my friend. If you put a sharpened stick into a bow, and a bodkin arrow into another, and shoot at the same thing, the bodkin will do more damage. Keyword: arrow. Not bow. The statement you responded to had nothing to do with bows.

Fine, then please be kind enough to describe to me the supposedly vast difference between Mongol and Turkish arrows--both had iron heads, so what's your case?

"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
  Quote ihsan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 09:15
Turkish bows are shorter than Mongol bows but in his book Warriors of the Steppe, Eric Hildinger says that 16th century Ottoman Turkish bows were the best among the composite bows.
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
demon View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
  Quote demon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 09:22

Turkish bows are shorter than Mongol bows but in his book Warriors of the Steppe, Eric Hildinger says that 16th century Ottoman Turkish bows were the best among the composite bows.

You mean, best AMONG the normad of the steppes. 

Grrr..
Back to Top
ihsan View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 831
  Quote ihsan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 11:03
16th century Ottomans were not nomadic
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

Steppes History Forum
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 12:23
well, the bows the turks used at the time of the Mongol conquest are not the same as the bows of the ottomans (AFAIk, the bows in question were those used by the Crimean tatars, not ottomans as such). this is because bows always develop further with time...
Back to Top
dman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote dman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 17:45

Problem with the Turkish bows was in the arrows.  The heads were attached to

the shaft by a tang rather than a socket.  When striking armour the arrowhead

would be driven back into the shaft and split it.  During the Crusades of Richard I

of England (Lionheart) there are numerous references (Battle of Arsuf) of

Christian soldiers looking like porupines with arrow sticking out of their surcoats.

The arrow would penetrate the surcoat hit the mail layer under and split the

shaft, the arrow would then get hung up by the surcoat.  Also the arrowheads

were often of poor grade metal - why waste money on something you are

throwing away!  The English longbow arrow (bodkin point) when tested in

modern tests would bend when hitting plate armour.    

Back to Top
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
  Quote Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2004 at 20:05
Originally posted by dman

Problem with the Turkish bows was in the arrows.  The heads were attached to

the shaft by a tang rather than a socket.  When striking armour the arrowhead

would be driven back into the shaft and split it.

And your sources for this are...?

 

  During the Crusades of Richard I

of England (Lionheart) there are numerous references (Battle of Arsuf) of

Christian soldiers looking like porupines with arrow sticking out of their surcoats.

The arrow would penetrate the surcoat hit the mail layer under and split the

shaft, the arrow would then get hung up by the surcoat.

Richard's troops at Arsuf were protected by thick buckram jerkins over their maille, which prevented arrows from penetrating.  It was not a shortcoming of the Saracen arrows, AFAIK.

  

Also the arrowheads

were often of poor grade metal - why waste money on something you are

throwing away!  The English longbow arrow (bodkin point) when tested in

modern tests would bend when hitting plate armour.

Post a link.

There have also been tests where longbow arrows have penetrated plates.

And there is at least one period account from the Battle of Agincourt of a clothyard shaft penetrating a bascinet.    

 

 



Edited by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
Back to Top
Evildoer View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 434
  Quote Evildoer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 06:27

That would make sense dman. The Turkish bows were indeed powerful, but they seem to have no effect on Crusaders.

I am most disappointed my dear sir Landsnekt that you did not understand my words. I was asking for evidence to support your last statement.

"Still trolling, I see?

Turkish and Mongol bows were very similar, as I'm sure you know. "

And if they are similar, how do they disprove my statement? Unless you can prove that they are identical it dosn't.

 



Edited by Evildoer
Back to Top
Mangudai View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 368
  Quote Mangudai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 08:23
Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

There have also been tests where longbow arrows have penetrated plates.

And there is at least one period account from the Battle of Agincourt of a clothyard shaft penetrating a bascinet.    

Test after test have confirmed that bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate solid plate armour. I've seen a longbowarcher penetrate a replica of a light 17th century iron-cuirasse but it failed against 2 mm steel used in 14th-15th century armour

Back to Top
Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 557
  Quote Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 09:25
Originally posted by Mangudai

Originally posted by Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner

There have also been tests where longbow arrows have penetrated plates.

And there is at least one period account from the Battle of Agincourt of a clothyard shaft penetrating a bascinet.    

Test after test have confirmed that bodkin arrows are unable to penetrate solid plate armour. I've seen a longbowarcher penetrate a replica of a light 17th century iron-cuirasse but it failed against 2 mm steel used in 14th-15th century armour

I'm not saying that longbows could penetrate all of the very best plate (ie., "armor of proof")--certainly, that is why the arquebus and (even more so) the musket were able to successfully compete with the longbow.  The fact that the Scottish nobility at Flodden in 1513--who were very well protected by plate armor--remained generally unharmed from English archery, reveals this, and it is something that I have brought up several times on this site.

Still, I'm waiting for a reference to these tanged Turkish arrowheads...

 

"Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft,

I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart."


--Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild)
Back to Top
dman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote dman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 12:30

The reference about the Turkish arrows using a tanged head vs socket is

from a TV show couple of years ago (History or Discovery channel) - cant

remember what show.  It was just something I remembered from it.  The

penetration test of English arrows was from a show (History channel) on the

Battle of Agincourt (1415) where various aspects (distances, sight lines,

condition of ground (mud), etc) were tested. 

 

Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
  Quote Imperator Invictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 18:55
Arrows can penetrate armor at the right instance, if you look at it scientifically. If a bodkin hits a plate at center from a 45 degree angle, like those raining down at you in Againcourt, I highly doubht it would penetrate. But if it hit directly, an in areas like the neck and the hips, then it would have a much higher chance. I'm not sure of the type of bascinet that was described, but it looks to me that most of those helmets have certain weakness in angle and design that would make it easier to penetrate by arrows. Just like in tank warfare, a shot at an angle to the front won't do much damage, but a "trap" shot to the turrent area can trap the shell in so that none of the energy is lost by deflection.
Back to Top
Abyssmal Fiend View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2004
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 233
  Quote Abyssmal Fiend Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 21:54

Fine, then please be kind enough to describe to me the supposedly vast difference between Mongol and Turkish arrows--both had iron heads, so what's your case?

No, you read bows as arrows, that was the problem. Or the other way around, can't remember at this point.


Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2004 at 02:03

 

 French bombard is missing. They made the Longbows obsolete and allowed us to win the onesided and complete victory in history, and entire English army destroyed or captured for only 5 french casualties at patay. Only Kleber with his 1500 Napoleonic  force did better against the Turks 35,000 cavalry at the Battle of Mt Talbor (with only 2 casualties . )

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2004 at 02:07

 Why can't I just stop staring at this picture. Those lips ....

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.