Nature of conflict in med.times oppinions needed!

[AnthoniusII]

Nature of conflict.
East vs West and some where in the midlle....
Armor and weapon choices of the medieval eras.


The aim of this document is to show the conection between weapons and armors according to each faction's traditional way of fighting...
First of all we must look closely the part of world each faction lives and acts.Opponets are a very iportant issue too.
For many centuries west europe people believed that middle east and far east factions like arabs,persians(the muslim version of them),turks,mongols etc were undevelopted in social and war terms compared to europeans.That was a great myth first crusaders made trying to convince more christians to join their ranks trying to hold the holly lands.If someone told the rest europeans that the crusaders found huge hostille cities and strong ennemies noone else would ever join the ranks of the crusaders ever...
What was the main diferences between the “western” invators and the muslim armies of that area?
Part 1:Threads...In europe there was no archery tradition(exept some tribes).Instad axes,swords and lances added with javelings were the majority of the weapons european nations loved to use.After the roman astablished a “typical” type of armor(to protect themselvs from those weapons) all europe added the chain and paded armors in their roster.Even when new invadors came to the area (huns,sarmatians etc) europeans did not add lamellar armors in their roster because the threads did not last that long to force them to change their war way of view.In the dark ages the weapons didn't change so and the armors.Only when crossbow came in use and europeans had to fight archers from the east,only then plate parts became to add on the armors and finally full plate armors were the typical armor for all europeans.
What about east?In this case the story comes even more in the past...
From the years of hellenistic wars east tribes (mostly the steppe ones) developted a deadly weapon known as steppe (or combosite)bow.This weapon was the stonger and with the larger range of all bows to the apearence of the long bow.Hellenistic and roman armies of the region had to change the way that they armored their forces to help them to survive.East tribes also knew the chain armors but soon they realised that that armor alone could not hold the power of the combosite's bow arrow.
Even from the age of the persian wars we know that central asian warriors had at their disposal plated parts on their armors spesialy for their legs and arms.Cavalrymen of the east also used light wheight lances (mostly of babbo)and they aimed to the opponet's head “NOT BODY”.East “nations” rellied” mostly in cavalry units becaouse of the distances they had to cover every war season.Their infantry was almost all several types of archer as multi role infantry.Armors and heavy type weapons simply were not at their tradition(ofcource they did have some heavy infantry type units).
And somewhere in the middle....
Talking about the middle we talk about byzantium,and east europe becaouse east europeans didn't take the haritage of the “germanic”way of fighting nor the weapon roster of them...
We must remember what was the origin of most eastern europeans(hungarians,slavs,etc).
As for the Roman Empire(the one and only),the medieval version we call Byzantium is a matter of it's own.
An east european faction examble is the vikings qonquered the “slavic” regions.Slavs didn't have any sofisticated way of war(they relied in ambuses) or had any heavy type of weapons.But vikings soon realised that the main enemy wasn't the slavs but the steppe tribes that already had vast numbers of light and medium cavalrymen mainly armed with combosite bows.The heavy armor and weapon equipment of the vikings was exelent against infantry mases but had use against an enemy that stayed out of range and caused huge casualties to them(is this situation remindes you something?Maybe the roman-parthian conflict..).The “rus”vikings adopted the combosite bow as a second weapon and formed cavalry “druzinas” to have a quick reaction against the steppe raiders...
Romans (byzantines)had a much more compicated problem with their opponets...
They had to develop light mobile troops to react to arabic raids(raids were the main style of warfare
between romans and arabs),heavy cavalry units to brake heavily armed infantry formations,light ambuse infantry to stay in contact with the invading enemy giving time for heavier troops to get ready,heavy armed infantry to give a solid formation and a refuge to other troops and to stand against heavy cavalry.Hellenistic and Roman heritage helped in a way to that army development but the enemies were the main reason.Let's have a closer look to main armors and weapons.
You all have seen the diferend type of lamellar armors(klivania in byzantine languege).Some of them “look”up and some of them “look”down.Have you ever try to see why?
A lamellar quirass has to stop not only the arrows but mainly the spearheads.A lamellar quirass is like a fish shuit.It is not easy to clean it from the front to rear because the knife can not easily penetrate.It is much more easier from the oposite direction...
That's the way lamellar quirass acts.Some resant experiments show that the chain mail has some resistance to arows too but not as good as the lamellar one.Chain mail is good against axes,clubs,mases etc.Byzantines found them selvs into a dillima...Which style of opponets should they defend against first.Should they arm their troops against east type of weapons or west?
They choosed both...Imperial(proffesional)troops divided in to west and east ones.Each army had it's own priorities:Army of the east had huge numbers of cavalry(of all types) for minnor times of reaction against sudden raids and invasions.Army of the west had some more infantry units (mostly heavy ones) to hold mounten passages(kleisoures) and for better defence against shock type cavalry.
Division were existed to armors too(for the most of troops becouse we must not forget that most of civilians bought their own armor and weapons by the economical status of their own).
Byzantine armouries could provide all type of armors and weapons until the 14th century.
Byzantine tagmatic troops should be able to act in both war theatres so they had to armor their bodies against all type of weapons,bows of the east and axes,lances of the west.That was the main reason of creating once again(after 6 centuries)the cataphractoi:both infantry and cavalry.
They took the clivania(lamellars)and zaves(chain mails)and combined them for one trooper only.
Add the epiloricia (padded)armors and just immagine how a cataphract “looked”.That's why cataphracts were extrimly slow on their attack.We must close a misunderstanting...
As clivanophoroi named all types (mostly) of cavalrymen that whore lamellar quirass.
As scoutatoi(or oplitai) named all infantymen of the line(with shields).
As contaratoi(or lansarii”lances”)or doryphoroi named all the line infantrymen armed with long spears(after 7th century by emperor Mauricios).
As psiloi named all light weaponed troops (levy archers,acontistai and slingers).
As koursores named (mostly) the cavalrymen armed with combosite bows(but with “good” armor that opened the main attack.
Defensores named (mostly) the cavalrymen”lancers” that their task was to lunch counter attacs if koursores were forced to retreat.
Procrousatores named all troops that their task was to keep enemy under “fire” until the mail asualt begin.
Hosarioi or enedreutai(ambousers) named all troops with the task of amboush.


In the “east” generals (arabs,persians,mongols,turks etc)had similar problems with armors and weapons.That's why “today” we know that they too have “cataphract”style troops in medieval era.
The first time westerns shocked by eastern bowmen was the norman invadors in Sicely.The shock was that great that they imported muslim bowmen in their army...
Crusaders of the 1st crusade soon realise that they were too vanurable against arows from combosite bows.They took two counter mesures.The first against the arows...they put lamellar (byzantine or arabic)over their heavy/light chain mails.But...heat became their worst nightmare(they didn't familiar with that kind of temperatures.
The next action they did was more simple and had a generic(byzantine)name:Turkopoles!
If you can not defend against arows then put someone to keep the launchers away from you.
“Italians” were the first to adopt plate parts for their nobles becaouse they were the first to develop
crossbow millitias.That weapon was known centuries before but the “Italians”realisted that you defend the huge cities of their own with large numbers of bowmen...
A bowman needs years to learn the art of bow but this changes when comes the training for crossbow.Vast numbers of troopers learned to use the crossbow in few weeks!
Crossbow had very short range but when you are under (wall?)protection range comes last.On the other hand the weapon had a very powerfull penetration skill.Chain mails alone became out of order
for atleast the ones who had the economical power to add the new parts on their armors.
Crossbow was in use to east as well but as a secondary millitia or a standart naval bowmen equipment...
Byzantines named crossbow “tzagra” and soldier who had it “tzagratora”.But for “romans' crossbow did NOT had a place in the weaponry roster as bow but as light-medium artilery.
Byzantine handfull crossbows were larger and heavier than eavery other.It was an antisiege waepon.It was the smolest of the balistas just like first handguns were the smolest of the canons!
While crossbows continued their development knights put more plate parts on their armors to the full development of the “full plate”armors...That didn't solve the problem...long bow still could penetrate the armor and the knight at the same time....and it was NOT the only one.Combosite bow
continued to be a conflict player.The most famus exambles were the Serbian and the Hungarian knights that continued to equip them selvs with shields dispite the “Italian made”full plate armors,trying to defend against the turkish arows!!!


West had a tactic superiority against east.I mean that they used men with a diferend way than their opponets.The diferance is well shown in the use of the cavalry and the prisoner treatment...
We must admit that west put new standards in cavalry asaults...
Conlusion:
If someone wants to provide to the quild members a realistic mod he must consider this:
We must add some advantages and disadvantages for every “type”of unit in the game...
Western units must be vanurable to composite bow arrows(at least the ones with standard patted and chain mails).
Knights of the west will have some advantage in strike points and charge ones...This advantage will grow when eras make available new type of weapons(lances)...
Kataphract type units of the east(ingluding byzantium) must have great resistance to arrows(even the crossbow ones)until long bow will come against them!
We must concider that the combosite bow must be usefull to the end of the mod.
First types of handguns sould have low rate of fire and definely shorter range of the most types of bows(crossbow is not one of them).
Mases must have more hit points than swords(against heavy armors).Notice:mases were NOT weapon of infantry!!
The first time the west can have a real advantage must be when part/full plate armors will be in use and new heavier type lances can be available...
Examble:...........
Weapon.........Range...........penetration points.
Longbow........10................10.
Comp.bow......8...................8.
Crossbow........6.................10.
Bow................5...................4.
Handgun*......5...................7.
Musket..........7...................11.
*handguns as they first developted in14th century.
P.S.Tzagra(the byzantine crossbow) is in the artillery weapons not in bows.

[Silesian_Noble]

Cannot agree. Heavy Xbow had effective range even up to 1km! No Bow whether long or composite could compete with it!

[Gatto]

This is really a complete historical exposition Antonius...compliments and I hope these observation will be considered in the mod

About missile weapons armor penetration of longbow was very good but... even equal as late crossbows? As far as I know English longbows at Crecy and Agincourt were mostly effective against barded horses and chainmail covered parts of the knights... these couldn't penetrate a full plate armor... at least if not using particular arrows at a very close distance.

Bows accuracy and rate of fire also greatly depended on distance, archers quality and tiredness and even on closeness of the enemy. Firing an arrow against a dismounted knight charging at three meters required a great selfcontrol, firing a crossbow was comparatively as easy as using an arquebus. Crossbowmen and arquebusiers if well trained could fire at point blank range and immediately hide behind pikemen, for archers it was harder to do so. Could this be implemented in MTW?

Cheers

[AlphaDelta]

As Silesian_Noble says, crossbows, especially later metal crossbows, were far more powerful than either composite bow or long bows. Armour penetration was better as was range.

The only advantage a bow has over a crossbow is that a crossbow can only be fired at a rate of 2 bolts per minutes. A skilled composite bow user could fire an arrow a second.

Notice:mases were NOT weapon of infantry!!

Maces were used by infantry throughout the middle east.

Cheers

[AnthoniusII]

I 'll try to answer to every nottice...
1st:About longbows penetration skill:An experiment made in 20th century in england ussing a longbow and a mounted knight replica armored just with the type of armors used in Kressy battle...The arrow penetrated the setle of the horse the knight from front to rear...
About crossbows...The most usefull advantage of that weapon was that the personel did not need much time to learn it...As for the range compered to longbow...Genoese crossbowmen (as merc units of the French) sufferd many losses from the english bowmen just becouse the could not launch arows in the same distance with their opponets(i think was at the Kressy battle).
Now late(full metal)crossbows!They belonged to light artilery(just like byzantine tzagra) mostly than the ussual xbows!!!They had almost the same penetration skill with the longbows but definetly NOT the same range!!!
About the comb bow...Can we think that late Serbian and Hungarian knights were that stupid to continue to use old fassioned shield with full plate(itallian)armors the same time the rest of european knights started to abontoned the use of shields?Can we all think that the threat of the turkish comb bows was a minor one for the knights i've allready mentioned?
As for byzantines...they had xbowmen too but those were "italian"orrigin merchant settlers the famous Gasmouloi.

[AlphaDelta]

Battlefield crossbows could have a draw weight anything up to 1200lb's. A longbow topped out at 150lb's. Crossbows were well known for both their penetration power and range. During the 100 years war it was well known that the French could hit the longbowmen before the longbowmen could get a shot off.

Wooden Crossbows were equal to longbows in terms of range, power and penetration. Composite bows were better than both. Later metal crossbows were better than all.

If you represent the longbow as some kind long-range, 12 rounds per minute sniper rifle with armour piercing rounds, it's going to be a boring battle.

Cheers

[Hengest]

When you say 'battlefield crossbows' are you talking about the ones carried by a single man or the mechanical ones which used crews?

[uanime5]

Point Blank made a real combat mod (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=115939). This may be a good starting point for unit's abilities.

[SaberHRE]

Concerning the primary post:

Good general knowledge, yet too vague.

Such statements that Slavs had an unsophisticated way of warfare, talking about "Germanic wafare", saying that Romans introduced mail are serious inaccuracies.

There is also exaggeration about Longbow, which wasn't a secret special weapon(it was common among all peoples of Europe, yet very limited in use).

Further, the reason why "Eastern European" Knights continued the use of shield was the following:

The shield was used among all European nations, a knightly shield was known, which was a small square with a semicircle at one corner, which allowed resting the lance. Although lance "rests" were known they were considered much of nuisance. Further the Eastern Knights did not always wear full plate(which means FULL plate, including vambraces, greaves, gorgets, armpit rondels etc.). Vunerable places such as armpits and necks had to be protected. This could only be achieved with a shield.

There is also misconception about use of Arab bowmen. They were used in mediocre numbers under the Norman rulers of Sicily, as they were distrusted. Their use was increased during Staufens, who needed cheap men, who would have nothing against fighting the Popes.

Concerning battefield crossbows, I think he meant war crossbows against hunting crossbows. Europe never knew "Field Artillery" until Late 14- Early 15th century.

Lastely their is some misconception about Longbow firing against "Cavalry" during Agincourt. The cavalry used against the English was small, and most went off to plunder the baggage train, so their wouldn't have been a Cavalry vs Archers confrontation.

[EmperorCharles]

on the crossbow vs longbow debate, its not so much total range as effective range. The crossbow could shot further but effectively the longbow had better range. as for their power they at point blank the crossbow was slightly stronger, but once again at distant the longbow had better piercing power.

the one ,major advantage of the longbow was its rate of fire. the longbow men where well trained they could get off 12 arrows a minute, the cross bow could get of maybe 2.

source. http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

[ivan_the_terrible]

As far as I am aware, the composite/recurve bows were supperior to any regualr bows, such as those used in the west, including the long bow. The reason why composite bows were not used in the west was the climate, as the dampness would severely limit their effectiveness, hence longbows being dominant in the west (basically due to their power in comparison to regular bows and also the superb training of the men, particularly English and Welsh).

I'm also reasonably sure that metal crossbows (arbalests) were superior to bows in everything but rate of fire. And offcourse there is the time required to train (which IMO should be reflected in the unit's cost rather than its in-game training time)

[SaberHRE]

on the crossbow vs longbow debate, its not so much total range as effective range. The crossbow could shot further but effectively the longbow had better range. as for their power they at point blank the crossbow was slightly stronger, but once again at distant the longbow had better piercing power.

the one ,major advantage of the longbow was its rate of fire. the longbow men where well trained they could get off 12 arrows a minute, the cross bow could get of maybe 2.

source. http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

True, thats why the crossbows had such as small impact on the results of the battle. Prior to Hussite Wars, the only effective use of crossbow en masse was demonstrated at Arsuf. During Hussite wars, the crossbowmen given a safe place to reload and aim, proved extremely effective against both infantry and cavalry.

Yet although the crossbow was not a decisive weapon in battle, in was a decisive weapon in terms of skirmishes, city brawls etc. The crossbow became a weapon which was essentially linked with urban life. I recall a quote from one book saying that during the 14th century, there was no burgher in the city who did not own: a dagger, a hat, and a crossbow.

[AnthoniusII]

I'm very happy that you all partisipate to this discation...Through this we all learn something new and we can make our work better!!!I hope that this discation will continue...Thank you again!!!

[Hengest]

While we are on the subject, it is a both of a myth that Longbows were mainly Welsh, both in the English military forces and internationally. Most of the best British longbows were made from superior wood in Europe.

[Hengest]

The other thing about crossbows versus longbows is a question of how they were used. Crossbows took a long time to draw and were complicated needing both hands and all your attention 'head down,' this left the user vulnerable. So that is why pavises were invented.

The good thing about a drawn crossbow, was that you could have the weapon charged and ready for firing for several minutes waiting for a perfect shot. Because the crossbow had no real arc of fire and used a heavier bolt rathe than an arrow it could pierce armour, kill its target and do it with 'absolute' precision.

A bow of any kind had to be drawn and fired immediately and the drawing could not be done in a crouched position like a crossbow could, so firing from cover was not advisable. A bow could of course use an arc of fire that the crossbow lacked, although this was not accurate and the arrow itself was unlikely to make a killing shot. A bow could not be held for prolonged periods whilst it was aimed, mainly because it used the archer's full body strength.

Archery took years of learning its 'art' whilst crossbows were fairly quick to use, and easy to maintain compared to a sensitive weapon like a bow which required understanding of the grain in the wood, effects on the tension when wet etc. This was also complicated by the fact that the bow used an arc of fire, which again needed great experience. A crossbow was basically, take cover -prepare, aim for as long as you need to and shoot straight. Since it was much more likely to kill directly, unlike a bow (which was still effective but for different reasons, a kill was not always neccessary to defeat an opponent) the crossbow became very popular.

[emperor umeu 1]

a few things...

Early on most longbowmen in the English army were Welsh so it's quite logical that in that time the best longbowmen in the English army came from Wales. It is not myth, you must just place it in the right time.

On longbow vs crossbow: The power of the longbow lay in the fact that it was used EN MASSE, the rain of arrows which blackened the sky at Agincourt were no lie, it was reality. So thousands of arrows raining down in a minute would devastate anything but a tank... Before they started using archers en masse they were a small portion of the medieval army, used to keep the enemy at bay for a while, while inflicting some losses. Then they would retreat behind the main line and fill the gaps during later fighting. That's why any type of archers had barely any effect on the outcome of battle in western Europe, they were undervalued and underused.

The strength of the crossbow lay in the facts already adressed. Easy to manufacture, easy to handle, deadly, long range etc. But if it was so perfect for massproduction, then why was it not used en masse? The reason lies in a few things. The nobles despised the crossbow, regarding it as an unfair weapon (The Pope also banned it, but I doubt it had any major influence) and therefor used it only in small quantities, the slow rate of fire was a serious handicap. But crossbowmen were used a lot, though they were only used in small numbers. Many sources claim that the captain of the crossbowmen was indeed a high rank in the army.

Conclusion: (long)bowmen are deadly when used en masse and can fire very fast. However normal bowmen in the west weren't used en masse so in gameterms their unitsize on huge should be 60 or 80 while the unitsize of longbowmen should be 120 or 150 since they were used en masse. English longbowmen were also fairly capable light or medium infantry.

Crossbowmen are deadly due their weapon but have very slow rate of fire. They however should be fairly well trained and well equiped men who could also fight as light or medium infantry when needed. Crossbowmen were also not used en masse, numbering usually, only a fraction of the entire army. So their numbers should be 40 or 60 on huge.

[AnthoniusII]

Good point my friend!!!That's the reason we are discussing the diferend numper of men for east bowmen,crossbowmen and longbowmen to present the "diferance" between the war cultures of east and west!

[NorwegianWarlord]

Just one little thing, very few of the vikings wore heavy armor. They also relied on ambushing, and really could not stand against an army, because of ther lack of numbers and poor equipment. The vikings who wore chainmail were rich, or professional soldiers, like bodyguards or "lords". But perhaps the "rus" vikings had better equipment stolen from enemies, but I doubt it

[merlinuscdxx]

Just one little thing, very few of the vikings wore heavy armor. They also relied on ambushing, and really could not stand against an army, because of ther lack of numbers and poor equipment. The vikings who wore chainmail were rich, or professional soldiers, like bodyguards or "lords". But perhaps the "rus" vikings had better equipment stolen from enemies, but I doubt it

Of the Vikings who had a good suit of armor, most of the ones that weren't rich Jarls or members of a rich Jarl's household got their armor while serving as mercenaries in the East or as the "household guard" of "the richest Jarl of them all", the Byzantine Emperor. How they got this armor is still open to conjecture (read- looted, that or telling an armorer "you are gonna hook me up or I will shove this axe where the sun don't shine, skraeling")

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

The best way to attest to the longbows effectiveness is A simple gesture Raise your index finger along with your middle one. Any English archer caught was relieved of those 2 fingers. How do you think us north americans got the basterdised one finger salute?

I wonder what the sound of 5000 bowstrings being loosed every 5 seconds would sound like? Probably a nightmare if your were a Frenchman at Agincourt.