Bob_Richter
08/21/02 06:09 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Thats right no more Vietnams, no more Zimbabwes, no more 'lower tech' groups overrunning 'higher tech' groups .... <<<
When it does happen, it's always high-tech on the offensive, and when it loses, it's a matter of running out of either money or public support.
>>>'in fact, they were SUPERIOR in both technology and warfighting techniques.'
Which points are incorrect?
,<<<
I'm confused. What does this mean? I was pointing out that the horse-barbarians (such as the mongols) who continuously overran their urban neighbors had better technics and tactics.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
08/21/02 06:37 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'I'm confused. What does this mean? I was pointing out that the horse-barbarians (such as the mongols) who continuously overran their urban neighbors had better technics and tactics.'
The chinese had superior technology. They had superior population (numbers). What they lacked was a 'active' central government. Warlords drained power from the central government thus allowing the 'tactically' superior horsemen from the mongols to defeat chinese forces. The Islamic Empire was superior in technology to any other known empire at its time including any of the western nations, before it was attacked by the mongols.
BTW... Zimbabwe (or Rhodesia as it was known during the time of conflict) was a defensive campaign. Sheer numbers and terrain hindered the government in power until such a time that the government decided enough was enough and made a few mistakes politically.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
08/21/02 07:09 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>The chinese had superior technology.<<<
And yet the mongols had better horses, better bows, and better techniques for using both. What technical superiority the Chinese might have posessed simply didn't matter on the battlefield.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
08/21/02 07:36 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'And yet the mongols had better horses'
This is not a technology but condition. They could afford to have almost their entire forces to be outfitted with fast horses, while the larger chinese army used mostly infantry.
'better bows'
The bows themselves were not superior to the chinese bows (some chinese bow types were superior to even european ones), but the ability to be fired while on horseback certainly made them all that much nastier and gave the Mongols a massive tactical advantage.
Do remember though the Chinese usually beat the Mongols alot its just the times they lost we truly remember. Even when the mongols won the chinese culture usually prevailed over the mongols. The now chinese-mongols then fell victim to later attacks by the again mongols due to the exact same problems the original chinese suffered. Technology did nothing for the chinese because they were inefficiently used it does not mean that the mongols were not barbaric just that they could use what they had better than the chinese could use their more advanced items.
Greyslayer
|
novakitty
08/21/02 07:55 PM
209.242.100.230
|
Technology is only a true sign of success if other variables are equal on both sides. Both sides must be equally trained, both must share the same opinion of what is warfare, and both must share equal numbers. With those three (and maybe a few others I did not think of) then technological superiority will define the victor.
meow
|
Greyslayer
08/21/02 09:01 PM
216.14.192.226
|
Sometimes. An untrained monkey can push a button (or it seems run a country  ).
I do dislike the comparrison that someone came accross earlier about hundred of years different in time making a great difference in conflicts from those eras. I was comparing the fact that groups not necessarily more advanced can win and often have in the past. Nomads ... I repeat nomads that in itself do not generally lend themselves to being a technological society (but usually oh so efficient) continually defeated a more advanced society.
The main comparison someone made was the 1918 tank (inception technology weapon) vs the current MBT. I would say this would be the same if in Cray's rules the US faction still fielded the exact same units it did in its first egagement against forces hundreds of years later. In fact I would say NO factions would field those types of units. Everyone who fields a unit would be using at least units advandced slightly from the 'inception' of the technology. Sure the force of current tanks might wipe out 1918 tanks but what about Panzer IVs or later still the T72? Still not great against the standard modern tank but certainly lethal enough to be a problem. Technology may have advanced alot since the first T72 left the factory but even with the advances of 30 years the unit is still dangerous to a modern tank.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
08/21/02 09:29 PM
65.129.165.252
|
Uhmm...interesting...sounds like a mix of Twlight2000 and some of the spins off from that...and Gundam Wing mix together with a BT backstory.
An interesting read.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
masdog5
08/21/02 09:37 PM
66.72.237.34
|
'...Panzer IVs or later still the T72? ...'
Well, alot of nations still equip the T72 as their MBT, and from what I understand, it is still effective versus front line troops.
The Panzer IVs, on the other hand, might not fare so well. Versus an M-1A2 Abrams, a Challenger II, a Leopard, or even a T90(or 92 or whatever the current Russian MBT is), I highly doubt they would be successful in battle. They may manage a few kills, but the range of the current guns, the benefts of computers, and depleted-uranium tipped HEAT rounds would make mincemeat of the steel-clad Panzers.
The reason, IMHO, that nomadic societies like the Mongolians and the Germanic tribes were so successful in batte, besides tactics, was ferocity. When it came to fighting, both groups were extremely ferocious and were willing to go to lengths that shocked the 'civilized people.'
In terms of war making technology, there wasnt much difference between the advanced societies and the low-tech societies. A sword is pretty much a sword. Although out of place, a properly maintained sword from the roman empire(no matter how ridiculous it would have looked) could have had a place on the medival battlefield.
|
novakitty
08/21/02 10:16 PM
209.242.100.230
|
You mentioned a variable I forgot: determination. An opponent truly willing to risk everything for victory is astoundingly difficult to beat, and usually causes severe casualties even if they lose.
meow
|
Greyslayer
08/21/02 10:37 PM
216.14.192.226
|
'A sword is pretty much a sword. Although out of place, a properly maintained sword from the roman empire(no matter how ridiculous it would have looked) could have had a place on the medival battlefield.'
Technology encompasses the whole thing. Sure a sword is a sword but is rag or animal hide armour the same as brigardine or studded leather?
'Well, alot of nations still equip the T72 as their MBT, and from what I understand, it is still effective versus front line troops.'
Reminds me of something I learned at my unit during Armoured Vehicle Recognition. 'This is a T80. If you come across this vehicle it means that somehow you have gotten trapped behind a division of T72s'
Greyslayer
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/21/02 10:49 PM
142.161.0.92
|
>>In terms of war making technology, there wasnt much difference between the advanced societies and the low-tech societies. A sword is pretty much a sword. Although out of place, a properly maintained sword from the roman empire(no matter how ridiculous it would have looked) could have had a place on the medival battlefield. <<
Yes, but don't forget the "Dark Ages" that took up much of the time between the Fall of Rome and, say, the Hundred Years' War. The "lost" Roman Empire was the pinnacle of military technology until the English longbow. Actually, during that period, military ability (mostly tactical) went backward during that time. I mean, really, do you think anything on the battlefield before the Hundred Years' War would have been a match for the Roman Legions? Even 1,000 years or more after the military theory that created them?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
masdog5
08/21/02 10:56 PM
205.213.145.140
|
'Technology encompasses the whole thing. Sure a sword is a sword but is rag or animal hide armour the same as brigardine or studded leather?'
No, its not. But on the same token, in close quarters combat, the armor technology, although providing an advantage, wouldnt be as much of a factor as the skills of the uinits. IIRC, the movie Braveheart(yeah, i know it is just a movie, and it might not even be that accurate) showed scottish warriors with their traditional weapons and armor facing off against the British, who most likely had superior technology, and in most cases, winning because of their slkill(from all the years of interclan warfare) and determination. Battlefield technology had little to do with the Scottish victory over the English.
Today, however, development quickly outpaces the ability to keep your forces modern. In most cases, weapons developed 50 years ago have already been scrapped because of obselesance, whereas back in the middle ages or even before that, weapons, and, concievably suits of armor(provided it fits and you want to be trapped in the same tin can that someone else died in) could be passed down through generations.
'This is a T80. If you come across this vehicle it means that somehow you have gotten trapped behind a division of T72s'
Lol...
|
Moraelin
08/22/02 09:43 AM
194.114.62.34
|
Grey, I was assuming an "all else being equal" scenario. As in, equal forces and equal resources. Sure, you can come up with a scenario where 10000 naked guys with spears have beat up 100 guys with steel cuirasses and muskets, but I fail to see what's that going to prove.
Either way, this is all going on a tangent already. My point is that technology did evolve. Maybe not as fast as from 1918 to 2002, but evolve it did. Constantly. Otherwise we'd still be fighting wars with bronze spears and thinking that the war charriot is the only way to have mobile warfare.
And the armour vs weapons race has been on for as long as the mankind existed. The romans upgraded their armor to maille (incorrectly known as chainmail to RPG players) and beat up the gauls who invented it, but only used it for chieftains. From then on, the evolution of weapons and fighting techniques forced at least the evolutionary increase area covered from just a sort of a maille t-shirt (the byrnie) to a full long coat with hood (the hauberk), until it made maille completely obsolete and replaced it with plate armor. Then came the race against muskets, which forced the plate to be so thick to resist a shot, that leg and arm and back armor was dropped, and the whole weight was concentrated into the thickest and heaviest breastplate and helmet that a soldier could wear. Then even that couldn't stop a bullet any more, and body armor as a whole became obsolete. And from there it's been a steady evolution, including somewhere along the way the rifled barrel and the minnie ball which are responsible for much of the pointless carnage during the secession war.
Basically even before tanks, a rifle from 1918 wasn't the same as a rifle from the secession war, and in turn that one wasn't the same as the muskets which put an end to the steel plate era. Which weren't the same as the crossbows and longbows which made steel plate needed in the first place. And so on.
There never was a time when technology stood completely still, and where 10,000 years later people are still using the _exact_ same weapons and armor. _That_ was my whole objections with setups like BT or Warhammer 40K, where for an eternity noone changes anything.
But even if we are to go back to your mongolian hordes examples, most of the time the invaders weren't that backwards either.
Let's see. The goths were pretty much technologically on par with the Romans, as military stuff went. That the Romans considered everyone else to be "barbarians", that doesn't change the fact that some of those barbarians were actually more advanced than the Romans. E.g., Rome became a nautical power by copying the design of a stranded warship from Carthage, not because of their own genius. E.g., what gave the Roman legions an advantage on land were not only the discipline, but also the maille armour copied from the Gauls. Now while the Gauls didn't actually use maille in battle, except as a sign of rank for their chieftains, the goths had lots of it, putting them on par with the Romans protection-wise.
Washington would have been beatten by the British all right, if it weren't for the French help.
The Vikings were some of the most technologically advanced people at the time, not some savages with fur boxers and stone spears. The Viking longships were centuries ahead of anyone else's ships, which allowed them to shift troops very quickly and easily, both on sea and up rivers, and hit where it hurts. The Viking weapons and armor were always on par or ahead of their neighbours weaponry.
And ironically enough, it's exactly the Vikings that I head in mind when I originally said that technology evolved constantly. If you look at the weapons found in Viking tombs and other archaeological evidence, the weaponry, tactics and formations of that zone evolved massively over only a few hundred years.
Contrary to the popular Hollywood image of Vikings as a bunch of disorganized, fur clad savages with horned helms and woodsman axes for weapons, those guys actually had good swords and other modern (for that time) weapons, good armour, and could fight in formation according to a plan. And, oh, without horns on their helmets, either.
---
Moraelin - The proud member of the Idiots' Guild
|
Moraelin
08/22/02 10:11 AM
194.114.62.34
|
In reply to:
Yes, but don't forget the "Dark Ages" that took up much of the time between the Fall of Rome and, say, the Hundred Years' War. The "lost" Roman Empire was the pinnacle of military technology until the English longbow. Actually, during that period, military ability (mostly tactical) went backward during that time. I mean, really, do you think anything on the battlefield before the Hundred Years' War would have been a match for the Roman Legions? Even 1,000 years or more after the military theory that created them?
Uhh... no offense, but that's bull. There was no such thing as going back in military technology during that era, except if you're getting your "facts" from Hollywood instead of history.
A Roman legion from around the beginning of the first millenium would have had its rear handed to it by an equal force of troops from around 1000 AD. Without the 1000 AD troops even breaking a sweat.
The 1000 AD foot troops had a serious armor advantage, as in the medieval maille hauberk vs the roman byrnie. That's one helluva lot more surface covered.
The 1000 AD foot troops also had steel broadswords, and in many cases impact weapons, too, both of which could kill or injure through maille. (A broadsword can still crack a rib or two through maille, even if it doesn't penetrate.) The Roman gladius, by contrast, was a broad stabbing weapon and useless against maille.
They 1000 AD troops also knew how to slash at the legs, whicht would have slaughtered the romans.
And things are getting even more interesting if we throw some cavalry into the mix. Because you know what the 1000 AD cavalry had? Stirrups. Full foot stirrups only came into widespread use around the middle of the 8'th century AD. And you know what you can do with stirrups? A cavalry charge with lances. That's what made knights rule the battlefield in the middle ages. (Which is also why around the same century we start finding lances, heavy armor and heavy saddles.)
So let's put these knights against a Roman legion. Well, they'd slaughter the Romans. The Roman cavalry would be at a _massive_ advantage against someone who can stay firmly in the saddle, and the Roman infantry had nothing that could stop a cavalry charge.
And so on and so forth.
So where's that going backwards in technology? I don't see any. All the archaeological evidence and chronicles point the exact other way around.
---
Moraelin - The proud member of the Idiots' Guild
|
Nightward
08/22/02 07:41 PM
132.234.251.211
|
You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter what level of technology you have access to if you cannot employ it correctly.
You correctly point out the advantage of armour style, but you are missing some important points. First off, the Romans were equipped with those massive tower shields (Pavise? Or is that what the Crossbowmen from the middle ages called their lumps of wood they hid behind whilst reloading?) and Pila. A smart Roman commander (and let's face it, was there any othr kind?) would nor order his troops to sit around waiting to be smote by English arrows, he'd have them move up under shield cover, probably in ye olde Tetsudo style.
Knowing how to slash against legs would similarly be useless against the Romans- that shield again.
Maille might have held against the Gladius, but maybe not. Even if it did, imagine how many would be cut down when the Legions threw their Pila? No amount of chainmail will stop that.
Next point: the Longbow was not what it is cracked up to be. The troops outfitted with the bows were all highly elite archers who trained since adolescence with the bow. Sure, you get better range and accuracy out of a Longbow, but compare that to the ease of use of a Crossbow- which is why Crossbows became the dominant personal firearm until the advent of reliable gunpowder weapons. It's a lot easier to give abunch of peasents a crossbow and a couple of quarrels and send them off than it is to train somebody from the age of 12 or so to use a longbow.
Your next fallacy is the Stirrup. The Romans didn't have stirrupos, but what they had was a saddle that was *JUST AS GOOD*. The Saddle vs Stirrup myth has been perpetrated by time, and it is *WRONG*. The Roman Auxilliaries (Cataphracts, IIRC) did, in fact, fight with spears that would just about be the same as a Lance- at least if you were on the recieving end. Granted, those Kite Shields mounted Knights employed would have been a big factor as well, at least if they went head to head- but I'd try to use Pila etc against armoured Knights and my Cataphracts against the infantry.
Finally, let's look at discipline. Anybody want to argue that the Romans would be less discpilined than the enemy they are facing? No? OK, maybe the Knights Templar or a similar Order would be close. But they did not fight together as long as the Legions did, and they didn't face the same punishment for cowardice as the Romans did- ie, they line you up and every tenth man dies.
Your final argument "Let's put Knights up against a Roman Legion" is also a bit off the mark. Roman Legions were *HUGE*, especially with their Auxilliary units of archers, javelin luggers, cataphracts, ballistae and catapult teams. I really doubt any single nation of the time would have maintained a force of Knights of equal size that they could mobilise to meet the Romans.
Finally, the battle's result would depend *HEAVILY* on who was in charge. I really doubt any Medieval tactician would be a match for Gauis (sp?) Julius "I came, I saw, I kicked it's arse" Caesar, or "Give me that midget!" Sulla, or "And now, for my next trick" Marius, let alone Scipius "Burn them. Burn them all. Then tear their houses down and salt their fields" Africanus. That being said, few Romans could have stood up to Richard the Lionheart (although he was a bit of a fool leaving his realm unguarded, but hey), or Henry "Hal" Bolingbroke. The list could go on.
Bottom line: there are too many variables. The only way we could tell for sure who would win would be if it actually happened- and it didn't. Generally speaking, the better tactician would win (Alexander the Great being a case in point). No matter what the technology level, whoever best uses what they've got will win. Anyone seen Zulu?
And that's my opinion 
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
masdog5
08/22/02 08:10 PM
66.72.237.34
|
Slightly OT...but:
'That being said, few Romans could have stood up to Richard the Lionheart (although he was a bit of a fool leaving his realm unguarded, but hey), '
Sounds a little like Victor...going off on a crusade against the clans...
|
Moraelin
08/23/02 12:54 AM
217.225.108.3
|
The stirrups were not what made cavalry possible or anything. But it did allow the rider to
A) hold a lance under his arm and charge at full speed, with the added weight of those big destrier horses behind that lance, for devastating effect.
B) Hold that big shield that you mention and still have more control over the horse.
C) Not become instantly useless in combat the moment they have their left arm wounded, as was the well documented ancient cavalry doctrine.
So basically, yep, romans had cavalry all right, but they could not do that disruptive charge that the medieval knights could.
And no, the pillum would do buggerall to stop that charge. The pillum was still in use throughout the middle ages. In fact in widespread use. (Another case of technology which was not, in fact lost.) Yet it wasn't until the pikeman formations that the 14'th century or so that infantry could stop a charge. And even then: only if you had infantry with very high morale and training.
The roman shield was not _that_ invincible. The same big roman shield lost to the Parthians' arrows.
And finally, your argument about the size of a legion is true, but doesn't do anything to disprove my point that technology did advance throughout the middle ages. True, if you put a 30,000 horde of romans against some 5,000-10,000 people of a big medieval army, the romans will have the advantage of numbers. And, yes, probably the advantage of training and discipline.
But again, my point was strictly that military technology did not go backwards in time through the dark ages. In fact, it didn't stand still, either.
---
Moraelin - The proud member of the Idiots' Guild
|
Greyslayer
08/23/02 01:46 AM
216.14.192.226
|
The Pilum I thought was likely to snap upon striking something? Am I correct or is this only an era related ability? (from what I have read it allowed the Romans to throw it but not have their opposition pick them up and throw them back or something... this would probably be a disadvantage against heavy cav).
The whole body of argument for this subthread was that forces a couple of hundred years further behind in technology would not do anything against a technologically superior foe. During the dark ages some areas did 'regress' in technology, all areas regressed in technology in the areas of architecture and building (anyone care to know anything about setting concrete under water?), technology had been lost and some superior items (like tower shields) were put aside for a different kind of strategy (dark age armies did contain alot of peasants so I would surmise if both sides had their standard ratios of troop types and both the same size then the romans would normally win the conflict). In general though a technology inferior group should lose to a technology superior force if it is of even numbers (a good example would be clan vs IS). But it doesn't mean the less advanced force would lose every and any fight.
Greyslayer
|
novakitty
08/23/02 01:59 AM
209.242.100.230
|
The weapon you are thinking of was basically a lead spear with a weight on the end. The soft metal would bend around the impact point, and would cease to be aerodynamic after one good throw. (and a real pain to remove if the victim did not die before treatment was available)
meow
|
Nightward
08/23/02 03:56 AM
211.26.2.197
|
The stirrups were not what made cavalry possible or anything. But it did allow the rider to
A) hold a lance under his arm and charge at full speed, with the added weight of those big destrier horses behind that lance, for devastating effect.
-->So did the saddle the Romans had. The only advantage Stirrups really have over the Roman saddle was letting you stand up, so I suppose you might be able to attack people closer to you by getting a better angle. The Romans didn't have Destriers, though; they had more mobile, lightly armoured/armed cavalry and thus no need of a brick wall with four legs
B) Hold that big shield that you mention and still have more control over the horse.
-->Yep. Kite Shields rocked, especially if some knob was attacking you from foot. That extended point thingy protected the leg on that side; the other needed no protection because you had a broadsword/axe/mace/uzi...no, wait...that was later 
C) Not become instantly useless in combat the moment they have their left arm wounded, as was the well documented ancient cavalry doctrine.
-->Eh? You really believe Europeans were the only ones to teach their horses to respond to vocal commands or knee taps? Err...
So basically, yep, romans had cavalry all right, but they could not do that disruptive charge that the medieval knights could.
--> Ja, but that was not my point. The Romans had a different sort of cavalry and used it differently. I was arguing the Stirrups vs Saddle falacy. A mounted Knight would probably KO a Cataphract. The effect of a mounted charge, whether by Cataphracts or Knights Templar, is pretty much going to be the same.
And no, the pillum would do buggerall to stop that charge. The pillum was still in use throughout the middle ages. In fact in widespread use. (Another case of technology which was not, in fact lost.) Yet it wasn't until the pikeman formations that the 14'th century or so that infantry could stop a charge. And even then: only if you had infantry with very high morale and training.
--> Apologies. I meant using the Pila as a spear. Not ideal, but that's what Gnauis, the Average Legionary would do.
True, if you put a 30,000 horde of romans against some 5,000-10,000 people of a big medieval army, the romans will have the advantage of numbers. And, yes, probably the advantage of training and discipline.
--> Booyah. The Romans rocked, which is why I picked them as the example. The Visigoths probably would not have sttod up so well
But again, my point was strictly that military technology did not go backwards in time through the dark ages. In fact, it didn't stand still, either.
--> True. It seemed your argument was that advanced technology always won, though, which is why I made that response. There are always a lot of myths around, and the less of those, the better. I commend you on your knowledge of military history, Moraelin. Cheers.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
NathanKell
08/23/02 02:52 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Just to add to the discussion, I found the original posts:
Battletech: 2300
BT:2300 Food for Thought
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
ChalengerII
08/23/02 03:12 PM
62.254.0.4
|
Someone said you get better accreacy out of the longbow tha the crossbow. Don't think so. I can hit a target a fair ammount of the time with a crossbow from about 50paces. Thats with the daft ones you can get on the market with sticky ends. Also accreasy ment nothing to a longbowman. The reason a troop of longbow men beat any army of crossbow men was that with a crossbow you need to see the enemy with a longbow you get a rought idea where he is and lossen off a few shots each. Considering the rate of fire from a longbow was many times that of a crossbow overal accreasy was of little importace. O and most peasents in Britian were compitant archers anyway. Someone came up with an idea that if the only sport allowed on Sundays was archery than every man in England would end up knowing how to fire a longbow so there was little extra training need in times of war. As for a roman advance with their shields covering all sides that was exact;ly what the bobkin arrow was designed to do. French knights carried heavier armor and metal shields but it did them little good at Agincourt. Seeing as Heavy cav wasn't around at the end of the Roman's period in the sun its hard to say what they would have come up with to stop a charge. They had pieces of wood with sharp ends that could be made inot a large caltrop in very little time. A well trained force could have carried a number of these into battle and when the cav charge quickly accemble them and pop them infront of their shield wall. Bet that would stop a cav charge dead.
Challenger
PS does anyone remember what the original post was about?
|
Cray
08/23/02 03:27 PM
64.83.29.242
|
Ah, so I DID post them here. Wow, that was many moons ago.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
08/23/02 04:17 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Yeah, and I'm too lazy to repost my comments...whatever they were. 
You could just save the trouble and call this RealerTech 2300, you know...
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Moraelin
08/24/02 11:54 AM
80.134.237.180
|
Actually both had their advantages, just in different ways.
The advantage of the longbow was, yep, the firing rate. A trained longbowman could shoot once every 5 seconds. Basically at Agincourt, the French faced a hail of 1000 arrows per second from the approximately 5000 english longbowmen. It's like going against 100 modern belt-fed machineguns. (Can you say: ouch?)
And as accuracy went, it was actually almost on par with a crossbow, if you had trained soldiers. You see, a modern crossbow gets you some really good speed, but a medieval 700 lbs draw heavy crossbow shot the bolt at a lousy 10% more speed than an arrow from a 70 lbs draw bow. The design was very inefficient. While the lathe stored _massive_ energy, most of that energy went into moving the lathe itself, and the actual pull would drop very abruptly once the string was released. So basically the trajectory was about as curved in both cases, and both needed the soldier to know how much upwards to aim it.
The advantage of the crossbow was: cheap soldiers.
England did have the good idea of forcing everyone to train with a longbow, but for someone relying on mercenaries or peasants, the longbow wasn't an economical idea. To effectively use longbows, you needed well trained, well fed, and well paid troops. Like all elite troops, that also meant: hard to find lots of them, and hard to replace them if the enemy cavalry got to them.
By contrast, any untrained and hungry peasant could load a crossbow and shoot it roughly that-a-way. Crossbow companies were a lot cheaper to have than longbow companies, as well as a lot easier to hire and to replace.
Basically, while one-on-one a company of longbowmen made mincemeat out of a company of crossbowmen (on account of the firing rate difference), you could have a lot more companies of crossbowmen for the same money.
The crossbow also had slightly better penetration against armour. While the bolt itself did only go about 10% faster, that translates into 20% more energy at the same weight. A crossbow bolt also tended to be heavier. (While you couldn't get those primitive lathes to shoot much faster, you could make them shoot a heavier bolt.) That translated into not only more energy on impact, but also less speed lost in flight, and a slightly longer effective range.
---
Moraelin - The proud member of the Idiots' Guild
Edited by Moraelin (08/24/02 11:57 AM)
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 162 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 17457
|
|
|
|
|
|
|