Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: TrashMan on February 04, 2005, 06:45:33 am
-
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Finally, someone who really knows what they are talking about, reveals the truth about knights and samurais - their weaponry and armor, their fighting technuiques.
Finally the knights get the respect they deserved. The truth is their fighting techniques and knowledge were as deep as advanced as the fabled samurai ones, and in some cases even more advanced.
Katana is no uber sword, europeian armor was far better than is generally thought, samurais never trained with shields????
Interesting stuff...
-
Mmh, even if I kind of agree, the guy is still biaised:
he takes one full paragraph if not more to demonstrate how well european armors could protect against a katana, and then...
"So, even though Japanese armor for the most part was made up of the same quality steel as went into their weapons, European blades would likely not encounter anything especially difficult with it that they didn’t already face. "
hmmf.
Also, he keeps switching weapons for the knight. So, shield? Yeah, a shield is cool, it can bloke super well, much better than you'd think. And then a double handed sword is longer than a katana. I mean, okayyyy...
bleh, I'm editing as I read, sorry :p
The japanese not being used to fight against shields is bull, helml, he stated it himself, they've fought against chinese and mongols, and they were using shields ( mainly the mongols ).
-
Go and read "By the Sword", by Richard Cohen. I think you'd like it if you're interested in sword combat. Being a fencer, I found it very interesting (Cohen is one as well). :nod:
EDIT: And yes, a fight between a classical knight and a kenjutsu practitioner would be far from easy to predict. The usual retarded "OMG! katanas are teh 1337!!!1" you get on the internet is frankly ridiculous, and smacks of fanboyism...
-
First of all, we must ask where is it these two lone warriors would meet? Under what circumstances? Since the conditions of this imaginary fight could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an encounter would best take place on a flat, firm, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver.
He just killed off the entire debate by picking a flat, firm and *OPEN* field.
Although, we can’t discount physiology as a factor and this would certainly be a reasonable advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5’3”-5’5”, while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6’ to about 6’5”).
So, all of a sudden he is an expert of the psyche, eh? Really, if he had a well-trained samurai in this debate, the size of his opponent wouldn't exactly matter... at all.
After this I stopped reading because the guy is either biased or just weighs the wrong things and interpets them the wrong way.
I'm not bashing the guy or anything, but his analysis is obviously flawed.
I've seen a ducumentary on this same subject on the Discovery channel. They showed in very good detail that both styles had advantages and disadvantages. They even showed 3-D fights to show what they meant. It's *impossible* to say that one is better then the other.
-
That's always been my view on the matter anyway: they're both armored dudes that hit in ways that will be painful :p
Anyway;, they'd be both owned by a ninja wizard.
-
Originally posted by Nico
That's always been my view on the matter anyway: they're both armored dudes that hit in ways that will be painful :p
Yeah, but knights in full plate armor are orders of magnitude cooler. :p
Originally posted by Nico
Anyway;, they'd be both owned by a ninja wizard.
Who would in turn be owned himself by a pirate. :D
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Who would in turn be owned himself by a pirate. :D
Who would be owned by Gaint Space Hamsters...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Who would be owned by Gaint Space Hamsters...
Pfft. Nothing beats pirates. Ask anyone from Volition. ;)
-
Since when did fighting involve hitting each other on the Armour? It's like this idea it's about bashing swords together.
European armour was a honeycomb, it was light, and tough, and Knights were extremely well trained and disciplined soldiers, but they were designed for fighting other people in tough honeycombed armour.
Most weapons used by medieval knights were designed not to stab or wound, but to crush and disable. The idea was to incapacitate your enemy, and then usually bludgeon him to death.
Samauri used scale armour, which was slightly lighter and weaker, but had the advantage of not being so easy to make 'seize up', since the scales overlapped each other. The Katana was NOT the main weapon of most Samauri anyway, they were Bowmen by preference. I've seen Katana's split bullets in half, I've seen then cut a sheet of silk in half simply by draping the silk over the blade, it's a formidable weapon. I think if it came down to a choice, I'd pick the Samauri, simply because he has higher flexibility and field of vision (let's face it, a knight without a helmet vs a Samuari would very quickly be a knight without a head vs a Samauri ;)
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Pfft. Nothing beats pirates. Ask anyone from Volition. ;)
yes they do.
They totally do: undead pirates :p
-
Tiny Plaid Ninjas!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/plaid.php
-
hehehehe I was just chatting to Mum on the phone, whe wants to know who would win between Ninjas and Ghurkas ;)
Any takers?
-
Goob! Will you please get that damn Flux capacitor out of your avatar? It's playing hell with the Forum clock :p
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Most weapons used by medieval knights were designed not to stab or wound, but to crush and disable. The idea was to incapacitate your enemy, and then usually bludgeon him to death.
Um, not really. there are plenty of weapons designed to specifically stab and wound from Europe. The introduction of plate armour led to the development of specialized swords and (particularly) long daggers that were very narrow and very sharp, used to penetrate the vulnerable points such as the shoulders, knees and groin of plate armour suits. Swords also got longer as a result (which eventually led to the duelling rapier of Renaissance Italy and France), making stabbing attacks very useful (often more so than the stereotyped full-arm swing that is associated with European "chivalric" traditions). Yes, you could use a double-handed greatsword to smash an opponent inside their armour, but you could also stab him through a joint with a Panzerbrecher or a thrust of said greatsword. Yes, a katana will slice a man in half with a clean hit, but not through plate steel. However, a blow from a European broadsword would probably break bones even through Samurai armour. Yes, a samurai has greater speed and agility, but that is offset by the far lesser vulnerability of a European knight (who will be no slouch himself). So you can't call it at all - it's purely down to the skill of the combatants...
-
Originally posted by Clave
Tiny Plaid Ninjas!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/plaid.php
There's something disturbingly cute about that...
Also, everybody knows that ninjas, even undead ones, fall to the might of the Giant Space Hamsters cause they can see in the dark, I mean they are from Space...:D
-
Originally posted by Nico
yes they do.
They totally do: undead pirates :p
But undead pirates are still pirates. :p
-
Why did I know even before entering the thread that it sooner or later would involve pirates ?
-
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
Why did I know even before entering the thread that it sooner or later would involve pirates ?
That's because everyone knows that pirates are awesome. :arr:
-
Originally posted by Styxx
That's because everyone knows that pirates are awesome. :arr:
indeed...
-
(http://www.crabapples.net/artwork/littlePirate.gif)
ARRR!
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I've seen a ducumentary on this same subject on the Discovery channel. They showed in very good detail that both styles had advantages and disadvantages. They even showed 3-D fights to show what they meant. It's *impossible* to say that one is better then the other.
And that was exactly his concusion! Read the whole text before bearing judgment.
The guy knows everything there is to know about middle age weaponry, armor and fighting technuiques. He trained with those weapons, he carried the armors and read the training manuals. True, the Europian region (thus, knights) is his favorite, but he's not attacking japanese or samurais.
In the end, his conclusion is htat both are elite, extreemly capable fighters.
Don't allso forget that what he is discussing is hypothetical. He states the probabiltiy of things (such as the samurai intimidated by hte bigger and bulkier europeian - which is completely palusable, as it is logical to fear somone who is stronger and bigger more, but as he himself states it later in the text - probably irelevant with all things considered).
Allso, he is not switching the weapons becoause he's trying to give the knight an advantage, but becouse he's trying t portrait different scenarios, as fighting techniques differ significantly wiht each weapon.
I would prolly put my money on the knight (sword&shield or greatsword), but then again, like the man said - it differ greatly given the time period and equipment.
-
In open ground wouldn't a Knight use his horse in combination with a pole weapon instead of a sword to kill an oponent?
-
And the samurai would probably shoot an arrow through the slit in his helm when he was charging at him...
-
So would the samurai. Then, even before, he'd use his bow. But heh, the guy decided "no ranged weapons", so there goes the samurai's weapon of choice :rolleyes:
-
Logistically, an open field, a knight in his armour vs. any type of Samurai that has any kenjutsu knowledge =
One supremely dead Knight after about 1-3 minutes.
Note: You can't ****ing MOVE in that armor, no matter how strong you are. The agility of man is significantly decreased when you wear all that medieval crap. That's why the Samurai clothing is made of not only layers, but also parts that don't contain the armor in order for them to be able to move.
Fact.
I'm not even getting into how many times a Katana is better than Valiant type of swords.
-
He put them on open ground a few feet away from eachother to give them both equal starting conditions.
He did say the combantans COULD use horses or ranged weapons, but for this faceoff it would be best if tehy fought melee.
-
Samurai bows weren't anything impressive - it took longbows to get through heavy plate at any useful range. The knight's heavy armour and shield would probably shrug off the arrows at range, and if you're going to allow all weapons, the samurai is screwed once the mounted knight starts a galloping charge from medium range and sticks a heavy lance on him before he can draw, aim and fire another arrow.
In all reality, the guy's assertion is mostly valid - they're fairly equivalent opponents, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, and the battle would most probably be decided by unpredictable circumstances.
But knights are still cooler. :D
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
And that was exactly his concusion! Read the whole text before bearing judgment.
The guy knows everything there is to know about middle age weaponry, armor and fighting technuiques. He trained with those weapons, he carried the armors and read the training manuals. True, the Europian region (thus, knights) is his favorite, but he's not attacking japanese or samurais.
In the end, his conclusion is htat both are elite, extreemly capable fighters.
Don't allso forget that what he is discussing is hypothetical. He states the probabiltiy of things (such as the samurai intimidated by hte bigger and bulkier europeian - which is completely palusable, as it is logical to fear somone who is stronger and bigger more, but as he himself states it later in the text - probably irelevant with all things considered).
Allso, he is not switching the weapons becoause he's trying to give the knight an advantage, but becouse he's trying t portrait different scenarios, as fighting techniques differ significantly wiht each weapon.
I would prolly put my money on the knight (sword&shield or greatsword), but then again, like the man said - it differ greatly given the time period and equipment.
That's not my point. the fact that the guy actually wrote an article on this subject shows he's not all that bright in the first place.
First he sets parameters that effectively make the entire debate invalid. Then follow various arguments which are inherently flawed.
Not to mention that I found some historical flaws as well. Another point that really makes it harder for me to take the article serious.
To quote someone I know;
"If he's so smart, he wouldn't be so stupid."
I really don't care if he's an expert. If he didn't contrdict himself and put false historical information in his article, it would be far more believable.
His conclusions might be correct, but conclusions are the least important. It's like saying x+1/y = 9 . Why is the answer 9? Give proper reasoning.
Since we're nearing exam time around here, if he gave me this as one of the final essays, the guy would get maybe a 6.5 (on a scale of 10) for not doing proper research. Which is a serious issue in any article and/or essay since it's directly related to the manner of which the reader perceives the information given to him/her.
[/teachermode]
ARRR MATEY! *CHOPPERCHOPCHOPCHOPCHOP*
:p
-
'During the Sengokujidai, the Japanese Samurai developed new armor and tactics more rapidly
than at any other time (Cleary 42). The most important factor in the development of tactics was
the introduction of firearms from Europe in 1542. Stephen Turnbull said in his book Samurai
Warfare, "The usual conclusion is to see the introduction of firearms as the cause, and the
change in warfare as the result." The Daimyo could no longer use the cavalry charge, which was
the most successful tactic until firearms. Because of the destructive nature of firearms, if a
Daimyo didn't get his hands on as many as possible, he would lose. However, most Daimyo didn't
like guns because they lessened the importance of honorable hand-to-hand fighting that had gone
on for centuries.
Firearms also brought about changes in the Samurai's armor, and even the recruitment of non
Samurai to fight in battle. Armor now had to be thicker and heavier for the upper class
Samurai; yet, even this was not enough. This extra cost, in money and life, was offset by the
Daimyo recruiting commoners to fight their battles. These commoners were called "ashigaru", or
light feet. Ashigaru, too, were against the Samurai idea of honor. Their widespread and
sometimes uncontrolled use contradicted much of the Samurai ideal of elite combat, but large
numbers had to be used by any successful leader (Turnbull Warfare 49). Thus began the
Sengokujidai, an age of war, greed, and treachery.'
Hmmmm... Pistols might have something to say about that plate armour though ;)
Smauri actually preferred cavalry charges as much as Medieval Knights did, but while Europe was slow to adopt Pistolletes, Japan was much faster to see the advantage ;)
-
Note to the Reader: Though I run an organization and website dedicated to historical European swordplay and fighting arts, I appreciate all swords of the world and consider each separately as a tool within their own cultural and martial context. So, I'm often perturbed at the prejudice and ignorance that results from the influential popular media in regard to many of them, particularly the hype that surrounds Japanese swords. For what's its worth, I offer my opinion here in the most even-handed and objective manner possible for me given my considerable experience and familiarity with historical European arms and armor and authentic Medieval & Renaissance combatives. As well, being a former member of the Houston Token Kai, (Japanese sword appreciation society) and having had the privilege of knowing several collectors, museum curators, and a blade polisher, I've had the opportunity over the last decade to handle more than a hundred genuine Japanese swords, ranging from mid-13th to early-20th century pieces. I've even had the rare pleasure to briefly wield several in floryshing and practice. I've also handled and personally examined in museums and private collections more than 200 antique European swords of all types from bronze-age to 19th century specimens as well as numerous ones from the Middle East, Africa, the Pacific Rim, and Central Asia. In addition to the hundred or so different sword forms--both European and Asian, antique and modern--that I've test-cut with against a wide assortment of materials, I've also cut with numerous Japanese swords (in this case, early-20th century specimens and modern reproductions) as well as attended several test-cutting demonstrations. Combined with my two and a half decades of fencing study with Medieval and Renaissance swords, and years of teaching them, I therefore feel uniquely qualified as a full-time practitioner to write this piece. Sadly, it's all too common to encounter individuals who feel appreciation of one culture's fighting arts must to come at denigration of another. Such adolescent reactions are a reflection of the reader's insecurity and immaturity. While we welcome intelligent discussion, before sending us any rebuttal email on this piece (or its companion article) we request you consider this as well as read through the entire article first. Additionally, please, do not waste our time and yours by emailing embarrassingly juvenile claims about how samurai "would have just used their Ki" or "everyone knows katanas could cut through any other swords" or that "Medieval armor was super heavy and clumsy." It should be abundantly clear that we deal here in physical reality and verifiable historical facts not fantasy derived from some video game or anime. Thank you.
From the guys own pen...
@tiara - I read trough the guys articel twice.. I found nothing wrong in it...
-
Yeah... Meanwhile, your pistol armed samurais wouldn't be facing knights, but formations of musketeers supported by pikemen, which would slaughter them without much trouble. ;)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
From the guys own pen...
I find it hard to trust the opinions of someone who doesn't understand what a paragraph is :lol:
-
LOL Actually, considering Samauri used Pistol Ashigaru to a very large degree but that stage, chances are anyone on a horse would look like a collander within the first 15 minutes of combat ;)
I can actually find precious little info on the Samauri Bow, the Internet seems obsessed with the Katana, it wasn't very powerful (it was a horse bow), but they were pretty good shots, either way, it's still tough to call, the Two are extremely similar in both their techniques and their Honour system.
-
Trashman, I have a master's degree in history. I think I know what I'm talking about when I see historical flaws. I'm not saying he is wrong, since I agree with his final conclusion. I'm just saying that his whole article is quite flawed. His argumentative structure and reasoning leave a lot to be desired.
I'm also not questioning his knowledge about the various weapons involved, but that seems to be all he really knows for some reason.
About the Author:
Having pursued the craft since 1980, John Clements is one of the world's foremost authorities on Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills. Clements has authored two books and more than a dozen magazine articles on historical swordplay. A leader in historical fencing studies, he has researched swords and sword combat in ten countries and taught seminars on the subject in eight. He has lectured and demonstrated at numerous museums and universities and is a frequent consultant on Medieval and Renaissance combative systems. He works full-time teaching and writing on historical European fighting arts.
He seems to have limit himself to the martial arts himself and little of the actual historical background. hHe might know a lot more about medieval fighting skills and weapons then me, but he certainly does not know how to write an article up to decent standards. If my assignment during my final year would be to write an article on this subject and i would turn this in, i wouldn't pass for sure.
I'm not bashing the guy, it was a very decent article for the average reader, but it wasn't a very well done one for me. (granted I nit-pick A LOT lately :p)
*goes back to grading another 31 4-page papers*
I wish I had some machine to grade the papers for me. Reading 31 papers on the same subject is boring as hell :sigh:
-
His writing skills seem to be enough for what he does...books, seminars, one of hte leading authorities on his field... I'd say hes doing good.
I really don't see any logical flaw here or places where he contradicted hismelf in that article.. So he doesn't have a masters degree in literature? So what?
By your standards, 90% of todays most beloved authors should have never finished school. But that's not even the point.
The whole point of this thread (and the reason I posted it) is to show how wrong current media present thing and blown up some things can be.
I find this thing hillarious:
Additionally, please, do not waste our time and yours by emailing embarrassingly juvenile claims about how samurai "would have just used their Ki" or "everyone knows katanas could cut through any other swords" or that "Medieval armor was super heavy and clumsy." It should be abundantly clear that we deal here in physical reality and verifiable historical facts not fantasy derived from some video game or anime. Thank you.
-
I remember hearing somewhere that in combat, using his katana was actually one of the samurai's last resorts. The favored weapons were the bow and the naginata, assuming I remember it correctly, and a naginata should basically be the equivalent of a Western halberd.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
His writing skills seem to be enough for what he does...books, seminars, one of hte leading authorities on his field... I'd say hes doing good.
I never said he was doing a bad job. Hell, i even said it was a very decent article for the average reader. but for him being one of the LEADING authorities in his field of study, it really makes me wonder.
I really don't see any logical flaw here or places where he contradicted hismelf in that article.. So he doesn't have a masters degree in literature? So what?
As I said, i'm nitpickerish about stuff like this. People see him as some uber-expert but yet they don't seem to see the difference between a equally uber article and an average one.
As for the flawed argumentative structure, reasoning and self-contradiction, i really don't have time to grade this article as well next to my stack of essays from my own students. :p
By your standards, 90% of todays most beloved authors should have never finished school. But that's not even the point.
No, they would've graduated high school :p Just not with real good grades for their essays if they use misinformation. A 6.5 (as i would give this article) would roughly be a C or C- in American grades. Which is just enough to graduate IIRC (unless the US eduction system is that much different from ours). :p:D
The whole point of this thread (and the reason I posted it) is to show how wrong current media present thing and blown up some things can be.
My point is that people shouldn't accept this article (or any other article really) so readily just because it looks good on the surface. You should be weary of such articles because the (background) information and underlying 'facts' in such articles is easily absorbed and seen as the truth.
This is actually a very dangerous way of spreading misinformation.
I find this thing hillarious:
Additionally, please, do not waste our time and yours by emailing embarrassingly juvenile claims about how samurai "would have just used their Ki" or "everyone knows katanas could cut through any other swords" or that "Medieval armor was super heavy and clumsy." It should be abundantly clear that we deal here in physical reality and verifiable historical facts not fantasy derived from some video game or anime. Thank you.
Hehe :D
-
Early Samurai were very strict in their code, they only fought other Samurai and they only fought with Two ceremonial swords. They were the only warriors in Japan allowed to carry 2 swords, in fact.
A lot of that changed with the creation of the Shogun and the Feudal system he imposed, suddenly wars sprang up between Nobles, and groups of Samurai would write into battle against each other. This was the high Era of the Samurai, they used Bows from a Distance, and then reverted to swords afterwards.
As the wars grew, the Ashigaru or 'lower warriors' were born, ordinary peasants with naginata, who, when grouped together were very effective against even groups of Samurai. It was at this stage that they started to adopt the bow more and more frequently as their weapon of choice.
Remember, Samurai bows were not to heavy foot-fired affairs of the Chinese army, there were never enough Samurai to provide a 'rain of Arrows', so they prided themselves on accuracy and being able to find chinks and gaps in their opponents armour.
Personally, I'm not making a guess who would win either way, it could just be the wording, but it seems to me with this article, no matter how right or wrong he may be, the author set out with a conclusion and then wrote an essay to prove it ;)
-
I choose to trust the words of an expert, rather then holywood or some self proclaimed know-it-alls who bough a sword replica on EBay and now thinks he knows everything...
I don't belive everything I see or read - in fact, I practicly don't belive anything I hear or see and view everything with skepticism.
Freedom of speech is a two edge blade and it seems to me the wielder is getting cut way too often (when any idiot can say whatever they want)
@Flipside:
Personally, I'm not making a guess who would win either way, it could just be the wording, but it seems to me with this article, no matter how right or wrong he may be, the author set out with a conclusion and then wrote an essay to prove it.
Eh? His only conclusion is that one cannot deterime who would win in such generalized arguments (too many variables), and that in the end it would mostly come down to personal skill & luck.
-
Sorry, badly worded that, I meant it's too easy to pick a conclusion and then right an essay to prove it, it doesn't matter if the Author is right or wrong, I'm sure I could find 100 articles saying that a Samurai would win and another 100 saying Knights would win, all stating 'reputable' sources.
What I meant was that suits of Armour could stay in the family for 100 years, poorer nobles had cheaper, older and less flexible armour etc. The same with poorer Samurai families, etc, so he is 100% right about too many variables.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Samurai bows weren't anything impressive - it took longbows to get through heavy plate at any useful range. The knight's heavy armour and shield would probably shrug off the arrows at range, and if you're going to allow all weapons, the samurai is screwed once the mounted knight starts a galloping charge from medium range and sticks a heavy lance on him before he can draw, aim and fire another arrow.
In all reality, the guy's assertion is mostly valid - they're fairly equivalent opponents, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, and the battle would most probably be decided by unpredictable circumstances.
But knights are still cooler. :D
Fact 1: long bows are nowhere near as effective as people think against armors and chainmails
Fact 2: the samurai would obviously shoot at the horse
wich woul lead to
Fact 3: a grounded, recovering from the horrible crash that follows the death of the galloping mount knight is no threat for a samourai. Or for a squire, in fact.
regardless of fact 1 to 3, no matter what, an heavier knight would not "screw" a samurai loading another arrow while riding a horse that is galloping more easily.
Samourais are not stupid standing targets for knight practice, they do move, actually. Yes, I don't kid you, they do.
But the guy is wrong, I've seen real armors, my country is full of real armors, you can get old pieces of full plate armors in about any city with a medieval history ( and they don't lack, in France ), and no, no, a full plate mail is not light, damn, a simple chain mail is AWFULLY heavy, so if you add the plate mail over it, well, no, man, it's not easy to move in it. US aluminium armors are not how armors actually were.
And you don't see a thing with an helmet on, btw.
Anyway, knights are not cooler, they're different. Samurai helmets are cool, and those shoulder plates are cool too :p
-
Warhorses used by medieval knights were heavily armored too - sometimes as much as the knight himself on the frontal section - so the argument for shooting the horse doesn't really work. Europe had bows and arrows back then too, and the knight still was predominant on the battlefield.
And dodging a lance charge isn't as simple as it sounds either. Contrary to what Hollywood wants you to believe, knights actually maneuvered their horses and aimed their lances during charges.
;)
-
I'd say it would depend on the equipment and skill of each of the combatants. Vague generalizations will get us nothing at all.
-
Ever ride a horse? I do, and I assure you that if the guy wants to avoid you and your 1/2 ton horse, he'll have no problem ;). And the "horse armor" ( name's caparaçon ) don't cover parts leg the neck, the legs, the bottom half of the body, so they were relative protections. And 90 times out of 100, it was just fabric anyway :)
And you didn't agree that the samurai's shoulder plates are cool, so I'm not pleased :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Ever ride a horse? I do, and I assure you that if the guy wants to avoid you and your 1/2 ton horse, he'll have no problem ;). And the "horse armor" ( name's caparaçon ) don't cover parts leg the neck, the legs, the bottom half of the body, so they were relative protections. And 90 times out of 100, it was just fabric anyway :)
And you didn't agree that the samurai's shoulder plates are cool, so I'm not pleased :p
Bah, your opinion, as an anime fan, should be promptly disregarded on this debate. :D
And samurai helmets and shoulder plates are dorky. :p
-
Bah, you suck :D
-
Well, I shot Archery for quite a while, what needs to be uderstood here is that the size of the bow it not actually so important as the tension of the string itself. Also, horse-bows tended to be recurve bows, which curve back on themselves, thus giving extra surface area.
The British Longbowmen who served aboard US navy vessels string their bows at around 110lb. That is, quite likely, more than most people could pull back more than an inch or two, but these guys were trained to pull them full stretch. Longbows had an advantage over pistols of longer range and faster reload, but required far more training and practice. It is that which killed the bow, not it's effectiveness. A Bow is still more effective Kill-range wise, than many pistols.
Arrows are also often a part of Medieval Bows that are ignored. You don't just get 'pointy' heads on them, you got Armour-piercing points, with Bullet-shaped heads and hardened tips, you got 'rippers', which were vicious inverted blades, designed to be removed only with the maximum of damage.
A decent Archer can hit the Bullseye of a target 60m away without using any kind of telescopic sight, only the sight on the Bow. A good Archer won't even need a few practice shots to set up the sight. ;)
Longbows, such as the sort used by Welsh Longbowmen, could effectively rip an armoured unit to shreds. Only the Crossbow was more effective and that was because of the nature of the Bolt, not the power of the weapon.
Edit : And note I say 'could' not 'would', Archers had their weaknesses. Weather affected them greatly, as did Ammo reserves. The shorter the range, the higher the chances of piercing armour, but the less time to get out the way. Life as an Archer was never dull ;)
-
LOL...no it wasn't.......
Remeber Braveheart? Shooting at Scottish asses only to trampled by the cavarly from the rear!
It's a shame there are no war horses around anymore....I would really like to see one of those beasts....
-
First - full plate was not the common form of armor - half plate is more like it, but even that was smg. only the rich (as rich among nobles) could afford.
....as for being so "heavy" - these men wore these armors from a young age.For reference, Nico, ever wore one of them?
I saw these armors too and since we also have quite a few. Their looks are misleading - the weight is distributed over the whole body. I'm roughly 67-70kg, and can lift and carry a 80-90kg person. I could probably wear a 40kg armor, and if I were actually a strong/well endowed person I could probably cope with it for a couple of hours.
However what most of you seem to forget is that the Medieval Knight was almost never the exclusive form of a Medieval Army.
Beside the heavly armored cavalry you had spearmand and archers - and used the proper weapon for the proper job.
....and no one spoke of crossbows the famed weapon of the crusaders. That thing was vicious, for it could be fired from a horse, and didn't need that long and tedious training to use.
It was banned by the pope and anyone using it against fellow Christians marked a heretic.
As for bows - what sets the samurai's bow apart is that it was assymetrical so a long bow could be used when riding a horse.
-
I wonder if the knights have a developed system of unarmed combat.
I know the samurai also practiced jujitsu which is the art of twisting joints and breaking them (not necessarily throwing the body to the ground, which would be impossible against an opponent with a ton of plate on him) and they are very effective against armored opponents since the wrist, ankles, joints were prime targets. In fact, I think that was jujitsu designed for.
The fellow's Katana vs Raiper was also concluded as "moot and answerable" :) Go figure .
-
What's so strange..it simply is..
Stupid question, stupid answer.
And knight did practice unarmed combat too, alltough it was more like wrestling:D