Print Page | Close Window

The best medieval unit

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=214
Printed Date: 19-Mar-2024 at 01:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: The best medieval unit
Posted By: rider
Subject: The best medieval unit
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 06:30
Now which is the best



Replies:
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:17
mmmh, what are Teutonic archers and Golden Mamelukes?

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:18

sorry, TEUTONIC KNIGHTS

and Golden Mamelukes, the nobles of Egypt and Syria, with lances and they wore golden armour, you may take them as Mamelukes.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 07:22
you mean the Khassaki?

-------------


Posted By: fastspawn
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:02
SInce Mongols thrased every army they met during this time period, and since the Keshiks are the imperial guard. I cast my vote.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:22

Well,  for me it is a hard decision of Byzantine Cataphract or Tuetonic knight,  I am going to vote Cataphract though because Tuetonic Knights' as far as I can imagine wore so much armor that if they were knocked down they would probably be out of the fight

So Cataphract then



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 11:33
now, did the byzantines call them cataphtactorii(armoured horsemen)???


Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 12:58

Originally posted by Huitzilopochtli

because Tuetonic Knights' as far as I can imagine wore so much armor that if they were knocked down they would probably be out of the fight

I have a feeling that this is a myth



-------------
Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 13:28
I said mongol archers speculating that the author meant mongolic cavarly archer

-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 14:07
Some of the units didn't coexist at the same time as others did! The Byzantine Katapractoi was the best equipted heavy cavalry of its time, but didn't last into the time of other units, like the Longbowman or even later knights. 

-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 14:15
yes, cavalry archers, and from the Kataphractii, then didnt they exist in 12th century...


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 14:27
MOngol archer cavalry was by far the most superior, I like the Keshiks more for cool armor but in terms of effectiveness range and mobility reign supreme over armor and brute force.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 15:39
I would like to correct the myth of the mongol supierority in army, no record whatsoever mentioned that their archery, organization,, discipline or armament than any other previous nomads that dominated mongolia, there is no reason just because they were more successful to suppose that their army is of supieror quality than others, there are many occasion when mongol armies were beaten by inferior odds too and vise versa, it all depend on the commander and thats one of the rason the mongol army was successful. 


Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 15:47

Also what is the time frame covered for this "Medeval", if its up to 1500, then I would say Ottoman since their firearm troops by that time was the most developed and trained.

If its before firearms, then its virtually impossible to decide since many of the armies were equippted with the same thing and both won and lost battles throughout.



Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 19:29
I had to choose between Mongol Archers and English Longbowmen.  I chose the Mongols because in the end they were more successful that the Longbowmen who although devastating to the French, weren't able to totally defeat them.

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: fastspawn
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2004 at 21:30
I think the mongols have got their vote split between the keshik's and the "mongol archers" since technically the keshiks were also mongol archers and were the imperial guard


Posted By: boody4
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2004 at 21:23
Polish Hussars.


Posted By: Tonifranz
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 06:42
The English Longbowmen. They were the defining weapon of the Hundred Years' War and gave  England it's military reputation during the Middle Ages.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2004 at 11:45

Originally posted by boody4

Polish Hussars.

 

i like it...



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 00:42

Originally posted by boody4

Polish Hussars.

They were not medieval.



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 08:05
they were more middle-new age ones


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 12:45

Originally posted by warhead

I would like to correct the myth of the mongol supierority in army, no record whatsoever mentioned that their archery, organization,, discipline or armament than any other previous nomads that dominated mongolia, there is no reason just because they were more successful to suppose that their army is of supieror quality than others, there are many occasion when mongol armies were beaten by inferior odds too and vise versa, it all depend on the commander and thats one of the rason the mongol army was successful. 

 

so? Theres no other steppe option on the poll



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 14:37
Well, the Mongol horse archers were so dominant in their time, that I have to vote for them, followed by Longbowmen and Roman Cataphracts.  Most others on their had a mixed records.


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 15:51
I would say the Keshik/Heshigten.

-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Keltoi
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 18:22
Can anyone enlighten me on the keshiks? I looked them up on google and couldn't really find anything.

-------------
Cymru am Byth


Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2004 at 21:07

"so? Theres no other steppe option on the poll"

 

there is an "other"



Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2004 at 09:32
and persians live in half-steppes


Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2004 at 17:50
Mongols! I can't decide  between Mongol Archers and Keshiks..


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 04:15
put those who have more votes..,.

-------------


Posted By: ihsan
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2004 at 14:16

Originally posted by Keltoi

Can anyone enlighten me on the keshiks? I looked them up on google and couldn't really find anything.

They were the Mongol guards formed by Chinggis Kha'an. Different versions of their names are Keshik and Kheshigten/Heshigten.

These are the Keshiks.



-------------
[IMG]http://img50.exs.cx/img50/6148/ger3.jpg">

Qaghan of the Vast Steppes

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2004 at 16:42
Originally posted by fastspawn

SInce Mongols thrased every army they met during this time period, and since the Keshiks are the imperial guard. I cast my vote.
this is not true


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2004 at 17:43
Originally posted by ihsan

Originally posted by Keltoi

Can anyone enlighten me on the keshiks? I looked them up on google and couldn't really find anything.

They were the Mongol guards formed by Chinggis Kha'an. Different versions of their names are Keshik and Kheshigten/Heshigten.

These are the Keshiks.

 

looks familiar, hee heh



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2004 at 18:18
Originally posted by Tobodai

Originally posted by ihsan

Originally posted by Keltoi

Can anyone enlighten me on the keshiks? I looked them up on google and couldn't really find anything.

They were the Mongol guards formed by Chinggis Kha'an. Different versions of their names are Keshik and Kheshigten/Heshigten.

These are the Keshiks.

 

looks familiar, hee heh

the europeans were better



Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 15:28

Hmm...

I would say Teutonic Knights, mainly due to the sheer amount of devotion, and that natural German-Pride that most Germans have, but the Teutonic Archers weren't very brilliant... Definetly over shadowed by Roman Cavalry, Mongolian Horse Archers, and British Longbowmen.

However, since I can't find a compromise (Spelling..? ), I'll say Others...

Cavalry: I really liked the French Paladins, but they didn't have as good of a record as the Roman Cavalry, so I'm going with the Cataphracts.

Archers: Hands down, English Longbowmen. I don't think the Mongolians would have won at Crecy, Agincourt, or any other major battlefield. Much less siege Paris.

Foot Soldiers: Here I'm kinda at a loss. I like the Spartans for their fearlessness (Or so it's said), the Macedonians for their Sarissa long pikes, and Roman Infantry. I'm going with the Immortals of the Persian army, though.



-------------

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 20:10

Golden Mamelukes !!!

 

They defeated Mongols.

I love gold.

They are nobles.



-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 20:28
Originally posted by SovietJesus

.

Archers: Hands down, English Longbowmen. I don't think the Mongolians would have won at Crecy, Agincourt, or any other major battlefield. Much less siege Paris.

.

This is exactly right. The english longbow is the most useful archery weapon in history and not like the fancy asian bows that costs hell of a lot to make.



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 20:35
Do you think you could make your points and express your opinions with out trolling?

-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2004 at 20:40

Originally posted by Cywr

Do you think you could make your points and express your opinions with out trolling?

this is not trolling. I think that the longbows are better. What's wrong with that?



Posted By: TMPikachu
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2004 at 10:22

Heavy Cavalry: Song heavy cavalry with fire lances!

Archers: One of those Medieval Chinese armies where every man carried a crossbow. Or the Mongol horse archers, yeah, them. With bows that could out range, out penetrate, even from horseback, any other non-modern bow in history. They're the perfect example of speed, power, and finesse in battle.

Footsoldiers: the Spartans were very famous footsoldiers, possibly the most famous in western history. The Landershnecks (wow, I just butchered that name) were just a cool idea, fancy fancy dressed hard-fightin' mercenaries with greatswords! There's also the various elite regiments formed throughout the long history of China. This one's too hard to decide. !

There's the Ming style formation of footmen... where it's like... a square is formed (with an empty center) of gunmen, fire lance users may be right behind them, then the center consists of halbrediers, greatswordsmen, and sword-and-shield men. Used to beat back the nomad archers. This tactic also required Chariots with gunners though. But basically, the chariots are mobile just enough to fire at the horse archers, the chariots then retreat towards the square when the nomads get too close, the square's projectile soldiers open fire, rockets are fired if the nomads attempt to charge (which is usually enough to drive them off) but if they still remain intent on charging, the shieldmen step up to block them while the halberdiers strike. shieldmen with their swords also dispatch de-horsed nomads.

 

So really, there can't be one 'best' trooper, as a good army consists of many elements to form a strong fighting force.



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 12:08

I won't vote, since the choices are somewhat limited, but I'll make a list:

Medieval

The Army of William the Conqueror  Normans, Bretons, & French, in a balanced force of heavy cavarly, infantry spearmen, and archers.

The Crusader Army of Richard the Lion-Heart  A formidable amalgamation of both secular knights and fighting monks (Templars & Hospitallers), as well as German and North Italian crossbowmen, protected by infantry spearmen with large shields (pavesari).  They certainly gave Saladin a bloody nose at Arsuf.

The Mongols  The record of the Mongols speaks for itself.  For all intents and purposes, they were unbeatable in the field.  They also excelled at sieges, with the help of Chinese and Persian engineers, as well as the efforts of Georgian and Armenian auxilliaries, etc.  Aside from the successful defense of the Hungarian town of Székesfehérvár (aka Stuhlweissenburg) by a band of Italian mercenaries, the Mongols defeated virtually every European force they encountered.  They likewise had tremendous success in the East.  Their only real failures were against the Mamluks at Ayn Jalut, and against the Vietnamese.  I don't count the two invasions of Japan because the "Mongol" forces involved in both campaigns were made up mainly of Chinese and Korean auxilliaries, and it was in any event the weather which ultimately did the fleets in.

The Mamluks  They beat the Mongols--'nuff said.

English yeomen (longbowmen and billmen)  The English yeoman was a formidable fighting man.  Known mainly for his use of the dreaded longbow, he also gained notoriety with the fearsome bill, a polearm with agricultural origins (used for pruning trees) that developed into military forms.  Aside from archery, traditional English martial arts included fencing with sword-and-buckler (common sidearms for longbowmen and billmen alike), and the use of traditional polearms like the "short staff" (aka quarterstaff) and bill variants ("black bill", "brown bill", and "forest bill"/"Welsh hook").  The English gained most of their notoriety by repeatedly trouncing the French, but they also served as mercenaries throughout Europe--in Italy, Spain, etc.

North Italian & German crossbowmen  see entry on Richard the Lion-Heart above.

***

Medieval/Renaissance

Swiss Reislaufer  The Swiss really helped to put footsoldiers back on the map, with their use of traditional weapons like the halberd (helleparten and pike (SpieB.  The smashed the Burgundians, Austrians, and others, before turning towards mercenary employment.  They were considered the very best infantry in Europe in the late 15th century, and they were so good that they prompted the Germans to simply copy them, when the first band of landsknechte was founded in the late 1400s.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

German Landsknechte  The landsknechts ("servants of the land") were established in imitation of the Swiss, and it took them a while to get as good as the freedom-loving mountaineers.  The Germans placed a greater emphasis on the use of firearms, which were used by some of their elite doppelsoldner (other doppelsoldner fought as close combat troops, with halberds and zweihanders--huge two-handed swords).  Whenever the Swiss and Germans clashed, no quarter was given--this was considered "Bad War".  Eventually, however, the landsknechts surpassed the Swiss--the Battle of La Bicocca in 1522 is usually considered the turning point.  This was the first time the landsknechts soundly defeated the Swiss.  The great German commander, Georg von Frundsberg (aka the "Father of the Landsknechts") even met the Swiss Captain of Unterwalden, Arnold Winkelried, and slew him with his pike.

The landsknechts continued to be a formidable force at least through the mid-16th century, but after that, the role of Top Dog went to the Spanish.

 

The Spanish Army of Italy, under Gonzalo de Cordoba  The "Great Captain" was certainly an awesome commander, and he laid the foundation for the later successes of the Spanish Army.  The original Spanish Army that invaded Italy in 1495 to counter the French was made up mostly of light cavalry (jinetes), as well as infantry sword-and-target men (referred to most commonly as rodeleros--"shield bearers"--but sometimes simply called espadachins--"swordsmen").  This force proved incapable of dealing with heavy French gendarmes and Swiss pikemen, and Cordoba suffered his only defeat that same year, at Seminara.  Cordoba then fought a guerrilla campaign, until he could reorganize his forces.  He introduced the arquebus on a wide scale, and 2,000 landsknechts leant to him by Maximillian added a much-needed pike element to his force (and eventually, the Spanish learned the Swiss-German pike drill themselves).  The rodeleros were retained, but in smaller numbers.  With this new infantry organization, Cordoba was never defeated again.  Supported by friendly pikemen, the rodeleros were able to execute great carnage with their swords against the Swiss.  He beat the French and Swiss time and again--at Barletta, Cerignola, and the Garigliano River.  His reforms led to the establishment of the colunela in 1505. 

The Spanish Army of Flanders, late 16th century  With the ever-increasing use of firearms, the Spanish revamped their organization yet again, with the tercio in 1534.  This was predominantly a pike-and-shot unit, though rodeleros were still occasionally used for specialist roles.  With the tercio, the Spanish gained the most fearsome reputation in Western Europe, and the Spanish Army of Flanders was probably one of the two very best armies in the world at that time (the other one was the samurai army that Hideyoshi sent to Korea in 1592).

 

The Samurai Army of Hideyoshi, late 16th century  In the 1540s, the Japanese were first exposed to the matchlock arquebus by the Portuguese, and the were understandably impressed.  They built copies of this weapon in droves, until they supposedly ended up with more firearms than existed in Europe!  Like other warrior cultures with a strong archery tradition (the English, the Venetians, and the Ottoman Turks), the Japanese integrated the use of guns and bows nicely--archers were used to provide covering fire for the gunners while the latter reloaded.  Although they failed to hold onto Korea (let alone conquer Ming China, as per Hideyoshi's plan), the Japanese in the 1590s nevertheless demonstrated their power over those six horrible years of the so-called Imjin War.

 

Peace,

David Black Mastro



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 12:39
Originally posted by dsjdsj

Originally posted by Cywr

Do you think you could make your points and express your opinions with out trolling?

this is not trolling. I think that the longbows are better. What's wrong with that?

You were making fun of the asian way of making bows. That's trolling.



-------------

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 12:53

This is exactly right. The english longbow is the most useful archery weapon in history and not like the fancy asian bows that costs hell of a lot to make.

Well, dsjdsj, longbows were initially made out of yew and that wood was a water-sensitive wood that had to be constantly kept out from wetting itself--it took some maintainance.  I don't think asian bows are better in cost, but I don't think they are worse.  They were about the same in costs and maintainance.

Note: Longbow had less range than mongolic composite bow...it took about 5~8 years to train a longbow while mongols were just recruits(they used bow as a tool 4 survival!).....mongol gets upper hand

Longbows could be shot faster(because all those trainings had the purpose of fast reloading)....but mongolic archers fired from further distance more accurately...evens out

Longbows were coordinated with infantry/cav, while mongolic Cavarly archers were organized into a team...evens out

Mongols also had good eye sight.  Still, visit mongolia and you'll find that everyone in primary school has got 2.0 eye vision....pro for mongols

Mongolic cavarly rode in horses, while Longbowmen walked....pro for mongols

Mongolic cavarly shot accurately on horsebacks while Longbowmen were mroe into "volley"...pro for mongol

--------

There, mongols have it...now prove me wrong



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 13:39

Demon,

 

Originally posted by demon

Well, dsjdsj, longbows were initially made out of yew and that wood was a water-sensitive wood that had to be constantly kept out from wetting itself--it took some maintainance.  I don't think asian bows are better in cost, but I don't think they are worse.  They were about the same in costs and maintainance.

I would imagine that the longbow was cheaper to manufacture--it's a single piece of wood, with horn knocks and a string.

Note: Longbow had less range than mongolic composite bow...

The composite bow has a longer range when using special flight arrows, which has little bearing in war.  In reality, both weapons were used at similar ranges.

it took about 5~8 years to train a longbow while mongols were just recruits(they used bow as a tool 4 survival!).....mongol gets upper hand

What are your sources for this?

Longbows could be shot faster(because all those trainings had the purpose of fast reloading)....but mongolic archers fired from further distance more accurately...evens out

The rate of fire for all handbows is going to be similar--ie., they're obviously quicker than crossbows and early firearms.  I'm not aware of any decisive advantage with the longbow in that department.

Mongols also had good eye sight.  Still, visit mongolia and you'll find that everyone in primary school has got 2.0 eye vision....pro for mongols

Unless you can prove what the average vision level was for 13th-14th century Mongols and Englishmen, you have no case here.

Mongolic cavarly rode in horses, while Longbowmen walked....pro for mongols

Mongolic cavarly shot accurately on horsebacks while Longbowmen were mroe into "volley"...pro for mongol

You're comparing apples and oranges--two totally different styles of warfare (ie., one static and one mobile).  And, FWIW, many English archers had horses for transportation, though they of course dismounted to shoot.

Peace,

David Black Mastro

 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 14:53

Quote:
it took about 5~8 years to train a longbow while mongols were just recruits(they used bow as a tool 4 survival!).....mongol gets upper hand

What are your sources for this?

I think the game "Age of Kings", on the section "history".  I'll check.



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 15:08

Mongols could have easily sieged Paris and crushed all the knights of Western Europe - as they had done in East Europe. Note how Bagdad, which is a giant compared to Western cities fell easily to Mongols using mangonels. They had siege equipment nessecery built by their allies and vassels.

Genghis Khan once failed to take a Tibetan fortress because his men had no experience of siegewarfare... so he trained them.

Mongols are no recruits. They hunted all their lives and protected their cattle against tribal raids.

By the way Warhead, Genghis Khan developed new tactics and that was why he was able to unite the Mongols. Instead of simple nomadic horse-archer hit-and run warfare, Genghis' horsearchers shot thick vollys at the enemy, then cleared off to let the heavy cavalry charge and crush them. It was effective against both the nomads and armoured Arabs and Europeans.

Mongol warriors were ruthless, attrocious and barbaric bunch... but their skills in warfare were unmatchable - except in some battles like the one against Mamelukes.



Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 15:54

Longbows were probably used by everyone at one time or another..

We do know longbows were used in Egypt, Scandinavia, Japan, etc, etc..

It's just the next step up from the simple bow.. just enlarge your simple bow and you get a longbow.. to get a composite bow, you have to do complicated things to the simple bow.. which made for better range, accuracy, etc..

some people(Mongols, Turks, Koreans, etc) advanced to the higher-tech bow, while others (English, Japanese, etc) just settled for the longbow..

Unless you can prove what the average vision level was for 13th-14th century Mongols and Englishmen, you have no case here.

the good eyesight comes from the fact that living in the steppes, you are used to seeing far far distances everyday. so I would think that this case is true back then as well..



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 16:21
Originally posted by demon

Quote:
it took about 5~8 years to train a longbow while mongols were just recruits(they used bow as a tool 4 survival!).....mongol gets upper hand

What are your sources for this?

I think the game "Age of Kings", on the section "history".  I'll check.

 

I wouldn't rely on a game for reliable info!



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 16:28
Originally posted by I/eye

Longbows were probably used by everyone at one time or another..

We do know longbows were used in Egypt, Scandinavia, Japan, etc, etc..

It's just the next step up from the simple bow.. just enlarge your simple bow and you get a longbow.. to get a composite bow, you have to do complicated things to the simple bow.. which made for better range, accuracy, etc..

some people(Mongols, Turks, Koreans, etc) advanced to the higher-tech bow, while others (English, Japanese, etc) just settled for the longbow..

The Japanese yumi is NOT a self-bow--it is a composite type made of wood and bamboo, though it is not as powerful as Continental Asian types of wood, sinew, and horn, as the Japanese themselves confessed during the Imjin War of 1592-98.

the good eyesight comes from the fact that living in the steppes, you are used to seeing far far distances everyday. so I would think that this case is true back then as well..

With all due respect, that doesn't sound particularly convincing.

Good eyesight is dependent primarily upon eye health, would you not agree?  How do you even begin to ascertain the respective eye health of Medieval Englishmen and Mongols?

Show me sources that back your claim--ones that preferrably come from a scientific or historical journal, as opposed to a game (no offense intended, Demon ).

Thanks,

David Black Mastro



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 18:40

I read about that eyesight thing too - I will find sources when I have time - but others can try as well.

English longbow was adapted from the welsh- but the welsh used it very differently. They got really close to their foe and slammed the arrow at close range.



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:03

Evildoer,

Originally posted by Evildoer

English longbow was adapted from the welsh-

The longbow was not unique to the Welsh--it was actually used in various English territories as well, as was noted by Mike Loades in the video, Archery--Its History and Forms.  It is certainly true that the South Welsh were among the best longbow archers in the British Isles, but they were not the only ones.  Also, while the English preferred yew, the Welsh typically made their bows out of elm.

 

but the welsh used it very differently. They got really close to their foe and slammed the arrow at close range.

That probably had something to do with the guerrilla-style nature of the Welsh Wars.

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:11

here's a site i found url]http://home.arcor.de/mustangace/sca_class_mongols.htm[/url]

The Mongol bow: 166lbs pull, 200-300 yards reach
The English longbow: 120lbs pull
SCA combat bows: 30lbs pull

[/quote]No peasants, all warriors: 10,000 Mongols = 10,000 fighters
(European army: 500 knights and 9500 peasants)

All on horseback = modern mechanized tank/infantry corps;
Average speed for the whole army: 60 miles per day (4 to 5 times faster than any European army);
Each warrior had four or more horses and rode them in turns.

The only defeat in the European/Middle Eastern region came in 1260 at Ain Jalut in Palestine, at the exact same site David had defeated Goliath thousands of years before.
They were beaten by a Mamluk army from Egypt. The Mamluks were slaves from the Cuman, Alan and Circassian tribes, sold to Egypt by the Mongols after they had been defeated in 1238.
Mamluks: 120,000 men
Mongols: 25,000 men  

>The favorite tactic was the fainted retreat (mangudai): After this tactic became known to their enemies, they just retreated longer, sometimes for days. At the Battle of Kalka River they retreated for 9 days until the Russians were spread out like pearls on a string and could be cut down one by one very easily.

> [/quote]

You can read more from the website.  I was personally surprised to see that the word mangudai came from "retreat" instead of a warrior class Age of Kings depicted

------

About eyesight

Great eyesight – it was said that they could distinguish a man from an animal from 18 miles away.

http://www.johnvanderploeg.nl/~mongolie/cgi/Link.cgi?lang=NL&item=Facts - http://www.johnvanderploeg.nl/~mongolie/cgi/Link.cgi?lang=NL &item=Facts

 

From their young age such qualities as perfect eyesight, measurement, patience and strength are nourished to develop a good archer.

Well, it's not convincing enough though....

 



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:17
The Japanese yumi is NOT a self-bow--it is a composite type made of wood and bamboo, though it is not as powerful as Continental Asian types of wood, sinew, and horn, as the Japanese themselves confessed during the Imjin War of 1592-98.

that's still not a composite bow, it's a laminated bow.. inferior to composite bows.



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:19
 a position based on who has better eyesight is nothing more than pure speculation.

-------------


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:22
okay...I am sorry to start all these eyesight nonsense in the first place...

-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:34

Originally posted by demon

The Mongol bow: 166lbs pull, 200-300 yards reach
The English longbow: 120lbs pull

There is no evidence that I am aware of that the average Mongol war bow had a 166lb pull--in fact, Erik Hildinger, author of Warriors of the Steppe:  A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. To 1700 A.D., suggests 60-70lbs as a more realistic draw weight for most war bows. 

This does not mean that heavier bows didn't exist--John F. Guilmartin, author of Gunpowder and Galleys, accepts a figure of 150lbs for the composite bows used by Ottoman naval archers in the 16th century, and the English longbows recovered from Henry VIII's carrack, the Mary Rose, range in draw weight from 70 to 140lbs.

As for actual combat ranges, Hildinger noted that in the 1630s, the Frenchman Beauplan observed Crimean Tatars shooting accurately at 60-100 yards. 

Hildinger also pointed out that a 16th century Arabic archery treatise stated that "the extreme range for a bow, while shooting accurately, is forty-five bow lengths, or somewhat over 80 yards."

E. Paterson, in his famous article, "The Archers of Islam", stated that "a trained archer, on foot, should hit a man every time at about 60 yards", but that accurate shooting from horseback was limited to only 10 yards!

No peasants, all warriors: 10,000 Mongols = 10,000 fighters
(European army: 500 knights and 9500 peasants)

It should not be assumed that all European infantry were "peasants"--this certainly wasn't the case for the English yeomenary, who were landowners, and it wasn't the case for mercenary crossbowmen from the Italian city-states and the German territories.  There's too much generalization here.

About eyesight

Great eyesight – it was said that they could distinguish a man from an animal from 18 miles away.

http://www.johnvanderploeg.nl/~mongolie/cgi/Link.cgi?lang=NL&item=Facts - http://www.johnvanderploeg.nl/~mongolie/cgi/Link.cgi?lang=NL &item=Facts

 

From their young age such qualities as perfect eyesight, measurement, patience and strength are nourished to develop a good archer.

Well, it's not convincing enough though....

Again, I want to see scientific evidence about this--not unfounded claims.  Certainly, the Mongols got a decent amount of protein, retinol (Vitamin A) and essential fatty acids from their diet that was rich in fresh mare's meat, lamb meat, and mare's milk (especially the koumiss that was fermented with beneficial bacteria like acidophilus).  The Vitamin A would have certainly benefitted eyesight, but many other cultures consumed plenty of dairy too--dairy from grass-fed cows and goats.  Until I see an actual academic study on this, I will remain somewhat skeptical.

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 19:48

I,

Originally posted by I/eye

The Japanese yumi is NOT a self-bow--it is a composite type made of wood and bamboo, though it is not as powerful as Continental Asian types of wood, sinew, and horn, as the Japanese themselves confessed during the Imjin War of 1592-98.

that's still not a composite bow, it's a laminated bow..

Fair enough--you get the parry-riposte in regards to semantics, but you originally claimed that the Japanese,

 just settled for the longbow..

Which infers that they used only self bows. 

inferior to composite bows.

Yes, I already noted that in the post you quoted me from.

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 20:06

Long bow is just simply a very big bow as its name implies, neither self laminated nor composite...

When he said No Peasents he was talking about mongols... he said Hungarians had 9500 peasents...

Of course eye-sight matters. If you cannot see a long distance and if you cannot see clearly how can you shoot? Common sense. If your eyes are bad as mine you wouldn't be able to hit a thing!  

I have a indirect evidence for the draw thing - you mention composite bows from Central Asia which would have been same as those used by Turks against First Crusaders, since Turks had just migrated to Middle East at the time from Central Asia. But their arrows could not penetrate the chainmail armour of European knights!

To my knowledge Mongols could indeed penetrate the much better plate armour + chainmail backup of 1200's Eastern European knights - so their bows must have been better than those of Central Asians.



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 20:34

E,

Originally posted by Evildoer

Long bow is just simply a very big bow as its name implies, neither self laminated nor composite...

Nobody stated otherwise.

When he said No Peasents he was talking about mongols...

Yes, I know.

 

he said Hungarians had 9500 peasents...

No, he said "Europeans had 9500 peasants", without specifying anything else. 

Besides, that info is from an SCA site, and thus IMO must be taken with a hefty grain of sodium chloride.

Of course eye-sight matters. If you cannot see a long distance and if you cannot see clearly how can you shoot? Common sense. If your eyes are bad as mine you wouldn't be able to hit a thing!

I never said eyesight didn't matter--I'm simply questioning the assertion that Mongols had better eyesight on average than other folks. 

I have a indirect evidence for the draw thing - you mention composite bows from Central Asia which would have been same as those used by Turks against First Crusaders, since Turks had just migrated to Middle East at the time from Central Asia. But their arrows could not penetrate the chainmail armour of European knights!

I'm not aware of First Crusade references, but accounts of the Battle of Arsuf during the Third Crusade mention that the crossbowmen in Richard's army wore thick buckram jackets over their maille hauberks, and this combo was proof against Saljuq arrows.

To my knowledge Mongols could indeed penetrate the much better plate armour + chainmail backup of 1200's Eastern European knights - so their bows must have been better than those of Central Asians.

Uh, the Mongols WERE Central Asians!

Anyway, Friar Carpini mentions the Mongols quenching their arrowheads in salt water so that they could pierce armor, but he doesn't specify what kind of armor.  The "plate armor" you refer to was actually the European coat-of-plates worn over maille--something like a later brigandine--and it was in all likelihood proof against arrows from hand bows.  Most casualties were derived from injuries to unprotected areas (the rider's face, the horse, etc).

 

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 21:16

"By the way Warhead, Genghis Khan developed new tactics and that was why he was able to unite the Mongols."

 

Those "new tactics" were long developed by earlier nomads such as Xiong nu and Tu Jue.

" Instead of simple nomadic horse-archer hit-and run warfare, Genghis' horsearchers shot thick vollys at the enemy, then cleared off to let the heavy cavalry charge and crush them. It was effective against both the nomads and armoured Arabs and Europeans"

 

There is nothing new about his tactic, all steppe army shot thick volleys of arrows and those that has heavy cavalry charge. Tu Jue used this tactic too, read Jiu Tang Shu's Tang army 's tactics against the Tu Jue. Where the tang heavy cavalry is used against the Tu jue shooters who were deadly and the infantry dismount from horses against their heavy cavalry. There is nothing new about the mongols, in fact no training method is recorded for the mongols, all theories about mongol discipline as well as intense training is based purely on speculation on what the mongols performed in their battles. And since the Xiong nu and Tujue never fought the Europeans and rarely the middle east, the record of earlier mongolian nomads weren't included in detail, while the Chinese records rarely mention battle in detail, those that does shows identical tactics and organization used by mongols and earlier nomads, there is nothing in Chinese record nor mongolian history that indicate the remotest difference in mongol warfare than any before that, or any mentioning of increased discipline or training, thus the so called "revolution" of warfare under mongols is nothing more than a myth.



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 21:23
Originally posted by warhead

"By the way Warhead, Genghis Khan developed new tactics and that was why he was able to unite the Mongols."

 

Those "new tactics" were long developed by earlier nomads such as Xiong nu and Tu Jue.

" Instead of simple nomadic horse-archer hit-and run warfare, Genghis' horsearchers shot thick vollys at the enemy, then cleared off to let the heavy cavalry charge and crush them. It was effective against both the nomads and armoured Arabs and Europeans"

 

There is nothing new about his tactic, all steppe army shot thick volleys of arrows and those that has heavy cavalry charge. Tu Jue used this tactic too, read Jiu Tang Shu's Tang army 's tactics against the Tu Jue. Where the tang heavy cavalry is used against the Tu jue shooters who were deadly and the infantry dismount from horses against their heavy cavalry. There is nothing new about the mongols, in fact no training method is recorded for the mongols, all theories about mongol discipline as well as intense training is based purely on speculation on what the mongols performed in their battles. And since the Xiong nu and Tujue never fought the Europeans and rarely the middle east, the record of earlier mongolian nomads weren't included in detail, while the Chinese records rarely mention battle in detail, those that does shows identical tactics and organization used by mongols and earlier nomads, there is nothing in Chinese record nor mongolian history that indicate the remotest difference in mongol warfare than any before that, or any mentioning of increased discipline or training, thus the so called "revolution" of warfare under mongols is nothing more than a myth.

My older brother (who specialized in this stuff in college) once told me that the Mongols used denser formations--with more men per a same-sized front--and thus their firepower was greater.  However, I admittedly don't know his source for this, so it must be considered suspect. 

Nevertheless, the Mongols were notably more successful than previous steppe peoples.



-------------
"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)


Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2004 at 21:36
I want the primary source for this, because none of those I've came across regarding to Mongolian tactics mention these.


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 05:30

Originally posted by warhead

I want the primary source for this, because none of those I've came across regarding to Mongolian tactics mention these.

I'll see what I can track down.



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 09:23
The mongols simply won most, so I casted my vote on them (the archers). But I guess the keshik and the mamluks were the best kind of unit available, although they were too few. The teutonic knights sucked big time, but the order's crossbowmen were pretty good...


Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2004 at 15:12
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.

-------------

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004 at 18:35
Originally posted by SovietJesus

Originally posted by dsjdsj

Originally posted by Cywr

Do you think you could make your points and express your opinions with out trolling?

this is not trolling. I think that the longbows are better. What's wrong with that?

You were making fun of the asian way of making bows. That's trolling.

you are seriously annoying me. All I said was the asian bows were harder to manufacture than the longbow. This is not trolling, you are talking nonesense.



Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004 at 18:49
Can someone tell me of some battles where the Roman Cataphracts were used with success. I would imagine Basil II used them a lot as he was buried near a cavalry training area.


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004 at 19:59

you are seriously annoying me. All I said was the asian bows were harder to manufacture than the longbow. This is not trolling, you are talking nonesense.

Sure, Longbows are a heck lot easier to make, just that they are not as good in performance as asian ones



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004 at 20:38

Originally posted by Someone

you are seriously annoying me. All I said was the asian bows were harder to manufacture than the longbow. This is not trolling, you are talking nonesense.

Your wording implied it, or I just seriously screwed up the translation.



-------------

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2004 at 20:59
Originally posted by SovietJesus

Originally posted by Someone

you are seriously annoying me. All I said was the asian bows were harder to manufacture than the longbow. This is not trolling, you are talking nonesense.

Your wording implied it, or I just seriously screwed up the translation.

a waste time to talk with you.



Posted By: Mangudai
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 08:23

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



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 12:45
don't forget the Order of St. maria was initially founded in the Holy land and they also fought against Muslims there...

-------------


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 06:44
Originally posted by demon

you are seriously annoying me. All I said was the asian bows were harder to manufacture than the longbow. This is not trolling, you are talking nonesense.

Sure, Longbows are a heck lot easier to make, just that they are not as good in performance as asian ones

Demon,

This is actually debateable.

Composite bows can launch arrows at far longer ranges with special flight arrows.

But, both types were used in battle at similar ranges.

And the English soldier of fortune, Sir John Smythe (who fought in the Balkans against the Turks), was of the opinion that the longbow was better, as he mentioned in his famous 1590 treatise, Certain Discourses Military.

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 07:44

But Turkish arrows could not pierce armour!  While Mongol arrows could.

I don't think long bow was any easier to make. Is there any sources for this? After all, it was big and required skill (no plain idiot could make a bow that has such a long range and strong strike power).



Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 07:46

But, both types were used in battle at similar ranges.

Oh well.  Maybe because all battles Ive studies with composite bow were defensive warfare (defending fort), I would agree with you on that .



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 07:52
Originally posted by Evildoer

But Turkish arrows could not pierce armour!  While Mongol arrows could.

Still trolling, I see?

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

I don't think long bow was any easier to make. Is there any sources for this? After all, it was big and required skill (no plain idiot could make a bow that has such a long range and strong strike power).

Both require a skilled bowyer, to be sure--but the fact remains that the construction of a composite bow is a far more complicated process.

Peace,

David



-------------
"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)


Posted By: I/eye
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 08:06

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..



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 09:44

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. 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 09:49

Vote = Mongol Archers

Best range, best bows, best arrows, best tactics............I'm noticing a trend there



-------------


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 23:01

 

double post

 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 23:04
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?

 

 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date 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?

 

 

 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: I/eye
Date 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/ÀϺ»±º¹« ±âü°è.htm - http://www.warfog.net/books/wave/waveappe/japweapon/ÀϺ»±º¹« ±âü°è.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.



-------------
[URL=http://imageshack.us]


Posted By: demon
Date 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 - 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 - 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 - 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



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date 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.



-------------

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!


Posted By: Evildoer
Date 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.



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date 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)


Posted By: ihsan
Date 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

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: demon
Date 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..


Posted By: ihsan
Date 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

http://steppes.proboards23.com - Steppes History Forum


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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...

-------------


Posted By: dman
Date 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.    



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date 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.    

 

 



-------------
"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)


Posted By: Evildoer
Date 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.

 



Posted By: Mangudai
Date 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



Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date 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)


Posted By: dman
Date 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. 

 



Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date 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.


Posted By: Abyssmal Fiend
Date 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!


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date 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 . )



-------------


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2004 at 02:07

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



-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com