I like fighting knights like I like my coffee: with a longbow.
Eh, not a very good anti-knight weapon at all, really.
At least if the knights have teched up to plate armor. :P
Are you kidding? It's the anti-knight weapon! Its' the one that killed all the knights!
Like, it's a bow, that you shoot from pretty far, whose arrows punch through plate mail. And you can have an army of peasants use them with only moderate training.
It's awesome! They make fun of Wales, and you see a legion of French knights die like dogs, and get shanked for good measure just to be certain.
It's actually some very interesting history, and provides a possible explanation for the British bird.
I think that explanation has been disproved, actually, but it's been a while since I read anything about it so maybe my memory is foggy.
Probably, it does seem a bit too simple. I don't really know of any other explanations for common angry gestures, actually. I mean, the middle finger is kind of silly.
It can actually be attested back to Roman times, perhaps even earlier. Originally it was a sexual sign.
Yeah, longbows required serious training, and on the skeletons of people who frequently fired longbows we can see bone spurs that had formed on their left arms from how much pressure was on them from the longbow.
Inquisitor on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Also, crecy mainly demonstrates that whoever was leading the french army had no fucking idea how to wage war.
Yeah, actually. That's pointed out. It's not like the knights couldn't have been effective. Or you know, the bunch of Genoese crossbowmen (Thanks Medieval:Total War for making me remember those annoying to dislodge assholes). It was more that they wasted the crossbowmen, then proceeded to charge in like and try to look wicked cool rather than actually figure out how to effectively kill the other dudes.
Was there a point where Knights were really worth it? I get the impression they kind of came and went in terms of usefulness rather fast. It seems according to my cursory examination that every time there was some new impervious armor, people came up with some new weapon a brain-dead peasant could use to punch through it.
Yeah, actually. That's pointed out. It's not like the knights couldn't have been effective. Or you know, the bunch of Genoese crossbowmen (Thanks Medieval:Total War for making me remember those annoying to dislodge assholes). It was more that they wasted the crossbowmen, then proceeded to charge in like and try to look wicked cool rather than actually figure out how to effectively kill the other dudes.
Was there a point where Knights were really worth it? I get the impression they kind of came and went in terms of usefulness rather fast. It seems according to my cursory examination that every time there was some new impervious armor, people came up with some new weapon a brain-dead peasant could use to punch through it.
I'm pretty sure knights were out and about kicking ass and taking names for hundreds of years. But it's not really my area of expertise.
Also I played as Genoa so fuck you! Eat crossbow bolts!
Oh man, there are moments interspersed throughout the Rocky series that make my cry like a bitch.
like?
I'm honestly having a hard time remembering the specific moments. Also, "cry like a bitch" isn't quite accurate. I know there are a couple between Mick and Rocky that get me all teary, which goes back to that whole father-worship thing jewcar mentioned.
Are you kidding? It's the anti-knight weapon! Its' the one that killed all the knights!
Like, it's a bow, that you shoot from pretty far, whose arrows punch through plate mail. And you can have an army of peasants use them with only moderate training.
Arrows can not punch through platemail. They can do a number on chain, especially bodkin arrows, which is what happened at crecy.
Look at agincourt to see how effective plate armor was against a hail of arrows.
It seems to be common knowledge that longbows pierce plate mail, but at Agincourt English arrows appear to have done virtually nothing to the French advance. I be confused.
They also require ridiculously small amounts of training.
Crossbows are pretty sick. Crossbow teams seem really hard to assault, between the pavise and the spear, and the steady stream of bolts from the crossbowmen and his two loaders.
Marching dismounted into a bog is a pretty stupid idea, yes.
As is charging your knights at archers with deployed stakes, as is letting your second wave of troops press upon your first wave, leaving them unable to properly fight.
Are you kidding? It's the anti-knight weapon! Its' the one that killed all the knights!
Like, it's a bow, that you shoot from pretty far, whose arrows punch through plate mail. And you can have an army of peasants use them with only moderate training.
Arrows can not punch through platemail. They can do a number on chain, especially bodkin arrows, which is what happened at crecy.
Look at agincourt to see how effective plate armor was against a hail of arrows.
It seems to be common knowledge that longbows pierce plate mail, but at Agincourt English arrows appear to have done virtually nothing to the French advance. I be confused.
Are you kidding? It's the anti-knight weapon! Its' the one that killed all the knights!
Like, it's a bow, that you shoot from pretty far, whose arrows punch through plate mail. And you can have an army of peasants use them with only moderate training.
Arrows can not punch through platemail. They can do a number on chain, especially bodkin arrows, which is what happened at crecy.
Look at agincourt to see how effective plate armor was against a hail of arrows.
It seems to be common knowledge that longbows pierce plate mail, but at Agincourt English arrows appear to have done virtually nothing to the French advance. I be confused.
It seems to be common knowledge that longbows pierce plate mail, but at Agincourt English arrows appear to have done virtually nothing to the French advance. I be confused.
Historical records seem to consistently disagree with the idea of longbows piercing platemail. I also remember some studies that were done on the british history channel equivalent where they made some plate armor, and then shot arrows at it out of a machine, at close ranges, and even then it failed to penetrate.
Posts
You are thinking of the musket.
Longbows required extensive training.
http://fxcuisine.com/default.asp?language=2&Display=241&resolution=high
the dudes who used to make samurai swords make kitchen knives now
WANT
It can actually be attested back to Roman times, perhaps even earlier. Originally it was a sexual sign.
What's that from?
wat
Yeah, longbows required serious training, and on the skeletons of people who frequently fired longbows we can see bone spurs that had formed on their left arms from how much pressure was on them from the longbow.
later
That's it.
Yeah, actually. That's pointed out. It's not like the knights couldn't have been effective. Or you know, the bunch of Genoese crossbowmen (Thanks Medieval:Total War for making me remember those annoying to dislodge assholes). It was more that they wasted the crossbowmen, then proceeded to charge in like and try to look wicked cool rather than actually figure out how to effectively kill the other dudes.
Was there a point where Knights were really worth it? I get the impression they kind of came and went in terms of usefulness rather fast. It seems according to my cursory examination that every time there was some new impervious armor, people came up with some new weapon a brain-dead peasant could use to punch through it.
like?
I'm pretty sure knights were out and about kicking ass and taking names for hundreds of years. But it's not really my area of expertise.
Also I played as Genoa so fuck you! Eat crossbow bolts!
Also [chat] should read Agincourt by Juliet Barker.
A fight that once again proves that France needs to get some people with half a brain leading their armies.
I mean, omg he has different views than you, surely no other speaker has had THAT BEFORE!!!
Just admit it you Irish pricks, it's because he's black.
This is why people hate Catholics.
They also require ridiculously small amounts of training.
Marching dismounted into a bog is a pretty stupid idea, yes.
ur gonna cry.
*stab* *stab*
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/longbow.htm
http://www.trivia-library.com/b/military-and-war-weapons-the-longbow.htm
It seems to be common knowledge that longbows pierce plate mail, but at Agincourt English arrows appear to have done virtually nothing to the French advance. I be confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Crossbows are pretty sick. Crossbow teams seem really hard to assault, between the pavise and the spear, and the steady stream of bolts from the crossbowmen and his two loaders.
As is charging your knights at archers with deployed stakes, as is letting your second wave of troops press upon your first wave, leaving them unable to properly fight.
Silly French.
He had to kill it Yoshimitsu-seppuku style, thus limiting its effectiveness.
The English and French are engaged in a never-ending struggle to embarrass themselves the most whilst fighting each other?
What stopped the French advance were the heavy rains the night before.
Historical records seem to consistently disagree with the idea of longbows piercing platemail. I also remember some studies that were done on the british history channel equivalent where they made some plate armor, and then shot arrows at it out of a machine, at close ranges, and even then it failed to penetrate.
I'll go look at those first two links though.