The best medieval unit

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

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

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

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.

16th century Ottomans were not nomadic

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.    

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

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...

 

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.

 

 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 . )