posted 03-22-2002 12:32 AM            

------------------
toughguy12

posted 03-22-2002 02:59 AM            

I don't really know about the difference in accuracy between the medieval crossbow and longbow. The fact that the longbow archers trained for many years may have made them more accurate than the less well trained crossbowmen. We know from modern equivalents that the crossbow is more accurate as one can take the time to aim it properly.
In battle, both longbow and crossbow were mostly used to rain arrows down from a distance, and it was the greater rate of fire that made the longbow superior to the crossbow in these situations. In a siege, the crossbow seems to have been preferred, possibly due to better accuracy.

The armour penetrating ability of bows depends very much on the armour and the distance from which it is shot.
Both the longbow and crossbow could penetrate armour, especially when provided with a head for the purpose.
The power of the crossbow continually increased, eventually in the 16th century or so reaching a massive 700 pounds draw weight in some cases, which is about 5 times that of the most powerfull longbows. This ofcourse meant the crossbows needed very complex mechanisms to span them, making their rate of fire quite slow.
The bows on the crossbows were very stiff and could not be drawn back very far, so all this power was pushing the arrow(bolt) for a very short distance. Now, I don't know the physics of this, but the short, powerful push by the crossbow could push the heavy bolt with great force, but less momentum/speed. This meant that at a short distance the crossbow bolt could probably go right through an armoured knight, but could not reach the distances the lighter, faster longbow arrow could.
I think that's right.

Erik

posted 03-22-2002 10:30 PM            

------------------
toughguy12

posted 03-22-2002 11:29 PM            

I am a member of a 14th century reenactment club where we recreate European 14th century armour and martial techiniques.
Those who have managed to fully complete their armour carry about 30-40 kg, evenly distributed on their body, and despite being average, unfit, modern day weaklings, are able to fight, fall, get up, wrestle and so on. For about 10 minutes anyway, then they need to take a break. We're not as fit as they would have been in the middle ages.
But you may say that the armour we make is not as strong(heavy) as the real thing. Wrong. In the case of the chainmaille it is in fact heavier than the real thing, the helms slightly lighter and the rest about the same.
We fight with real weight(blunted) swords and don't want to get hurt.

The only times weight might have been restrictive was at the joust or when wearing "proof" armour of the 16th century.
When jousting, especially after the 14th century, a knight usually had additional armour of very thick plate to protect against the lance. He did not need to be able to move very much and therefore special pieces of armour developed which allowed the lance of his opponent to harmlessly glance off his body. This armour was heavy and restrictive and was only ever worn in jousts, never in real battle.
The "proof" armour developed in responce to the handgun(small cannon) in the 15th century. It was thicker and heavier, but confined mostly to the breastplate on the front of the torso. But the knight had practically dissapeared by the end of the 15th century and battle was mostly by soldiers on foot by then.

Toughguy, a knight would go into battle with the best armour he could afford. The armour was designed to be functional and did not need to be discarded to allow the knight to fight effectively. The only exceptions to this were the greathelm and the later visors of the 14th century. They restricted sight and so were often discarded after an initial charge, or in the case of the greathelm, eventually worn only in jousts.

Up until about the 13th century, chainmaille and a helm were the only pieces of iron armour worn in battle. It wasn't until the later 13th century, and particularly the 14th century, that plate armour began to develop, reaching it's full form as "suits of armour" in the 15th century.
So for centuries chainmaille was the only iron armour(apart from the helm) worn by knights.

posted 03-26-2002 10:37 PM            

------------------
toughguy12

posted 03-29-2002 04:02 AM            

As for the silk, it was certainly worn, but whether it had the ability to help with extracting an arrow is unknown to me. I can't imagine silk thread would be able to withstand the impact of a sharp arrow head without being cut. The arrow head would have to be very flat faced to take the thread into the wound with it, otherwise it would simply push it aside.

posted 05-29-2002 07:25 PM         

Maybe I shouldn't be sticking my neck out here as this is my first post to this board, but here goes....

I would like to clear up on thing that I read on this thread.

Arrows shot from a longbow could not go through armour. And when I say armour I mean plate armour. Cressy, Poiters, and Agincourt are very good examples of masses of English archers shooting at armoured cavalry. The english archers shot masses of arrows at the French but didn't kill many men. What they did do was disrupt the lines. They cause confusion that broke the French charge. Once they were in confusion the dismounted english men-at-arm moved in along with the archers who had axes that would crush plate.

That doesn't mean that they didn't kill some. eye slots and joints in armour would be hit by accident or on purpose. They were great shots.

posted 05-30-2002 01:49 AM            

Firsly let me say, that longbows can penetrate armour, but nowhere do I state that the rain of arrows was able to penetrate armour, and I certainly don't think it did to any great degree. To quote myself, I did say;
".....the use of the longbow 'en masse' by the English resulted in the knights dismounting at many battles as the knights did not want their horses cut down by the rain of arrows." So I mention the horses, not the knights.
I then go on to say;
"The armour penetrating ability of bows depends very much on the armour and the distance from which it is shot." So, what I am saying is that, under the right conditions, such as close range shooting perpendicular to the lay of the armour, the longbow can penetrate armour, provided the knight was not wearing a "proof" breastplate, which in the case of even Agincourt, he would not, as they did not come about until the later 15th or early 16th century.
The plate armour of the 14th and early 15th century was quite thin and not yet made of harder steels, and I have seen a longbow arrow shot from fair distance penetrate a modern steel breastplate replica.

In the case of Agincourt, if I remember correctly, the French first sent in their lightly(or not at all) armoured foot who were cut down by the archers, their bodies impeding the attempted charge of the French knight afterwards.

posted 05-30-2002 11:19 AM         

Yes, though there is must dispute about a modern replica's ability to portray what it would have been like. I would say that every situation is different. And in no way is it impossible for a longbow to shoot through armour. I just think that in battle it is the exception. An archer would first have aimed at an eye slot or joint rather than risk not penetrating armour.

The French send their mercenary crossbowmen against the English first. But the English archers had much more range and could shoot at a much faster rate. Thus the crossbowmen had a hard time getting into range(I don't think they ever did) and they fell into confusion and retreated. The French commander was so mad he ordered his knights to fall apon crossbowmen. This added to the confusion as some of the French charged and some didn't. And I think if I remember correctly the French in the front were trying to stop for the night, but they did so with much noise and those farther down the colum thought that those in front had started to fight with the English and pressed on thus making a great deal of confusion.

I am saying all this off the top of my head as I am too lazy to go look things up. If anyone wants I can find my sources.

And as far a sword play goes.....well, I too am not ignorant when it comes to play with bladed weapons.