Arguing about the integrity of this quote based on his priesthood and other writings is totally idiotic, but I don't think you need to be an "expert" to observe and record a singular event during/after a battle.
Don't be silly.
Arguing about the integrity of this quote based on his priesthood and other writings is totally idiotic, but I don't think you need to be an "expert" to observe and record a singular event during/after a battle.
Don't be silly.
Yeah dude, he was wring about Welsh folklore. It's not like he believed it, he was just a, say, medieval reporter. You know putting old folk stories on paper for posterity. He wasn't delusional.
“The hardest thing in the world is to assume the mood of a warrior. It is of no use to be sad and complain and feel justified in doing so, believing that someone is always doing something to us. Nobody is doing anything to anybody, much less to a warrior.” ― Don Juan
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." -- Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, USMC
I don't know about that, that is your interpretation. Better qualified people have commented on his writings. He reports plenty of strange things and there is no clear indication that he did not believe them. The story about the arrow sounds as hard to believe as the other stories anyway. Why should this story be taken seriously (being, as it is, hearsay) and not the other ones?
1.Are you a bit slow? Did you read my comment?The force won't knock you off your feet...that's the point if you can't even read my comment than don't comment on it.You're saying that if you get shot by a .500 magnum shot you won't get put down? Can I try it on you?
2.200fps is a bit too much for a 1750 grain arrow from a longbow,it would be more like 180 or less.
3.The force needed to penetrate 2mm of tempered medium carbon steel is higher than 200joule,assuming that it is shot from a distance and that it is actual armor ,not just a flat plate,you would need even more.
Than add the padding .
Last edited by Sint; August 03, 2014 at 07:20 AM.
...and another thread derailed by pointless endless debate about the longbow myths and truths
One thing raised at the OP is that the human player should always win over the AI, which is fine. Another thing that happens, however, on hard and very hard is that the computer player gets endless armies, so that the human player has to use a ton of exploits, such as stakes (historical but the AI never uses them), siege engines (historical but the AI does not know how to use them), sallying out (the AI rarely does it and even then it can be abused as an exploit), flamethrowers and naffatun (the AI has no clue how they are supposed to be used), carcasses (the AI has no clue what they are for), firearm units (the AI most of the time is unable to use them), building forts and so on. Whether the AI keeps its units together or runs all over the place like fish out of water, the human player can abuse that, too. Reading the campaign script is another exploit. In fact, the line between superior tactics and abusing the AI is very thin.
I do not know what is the answer. Playing on hard or very hard is basically an exercise on how many ways you know to abuse the AI with. On the other hand, the campaign AI is too lame on the easier levels and also does not hire mercs. Perhaps a better combination would be playing with the campaign AI on very hard and the campaign script on normal but with extremely low availability of fancy weaponry (such as catapults, cannons, etc).
Because it's within the realm of possibility as opposed to the other quote you brought up which isn't, and because it's a primary source document. Those two things make it plausible, therefore it can be taken seriously.
If only there was some way to "transform" a dead horsed knight into a foot knight, perhaps with lower health or stats to represent possible injury, to more accurately portray a knight's horse dying underneath him. It would have to be somewhat random, and whether or not the knight survives the fall or dies more often is up for debate. You could factor in the projectile type used, the speed the horse was traveling, and the mass of cavalry that was charging to determine this maybe.
Although I highly doubt that's possible to mod... Memory editing, maybe?
I wonder if it would be possible then, to give units morale penalties if they are under heavy fire? To balance this out perhaps arrow damage could be lowered by a point or two straight across the board. Skirmishing at the beginning of fights would be way more useful as a result, and I think that would make battles more fun too.
Also, the thread isn't derailed, the OP did say
Last edited by Grabbin_Megroin; August 03, 2014 at 03:31 PM.
GUYS,
LETS KEEP THIS DEBATE NICE AND POLITE, LETS NOT ABUSE PEOPLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.
TREAT THIS AS A THREAD WARNING, ANY FURTHER PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL SEE THIS THREAD CLOSED.
NAVAJO JOE
SS FORUM MODERATOR
'Proud to be patronised by cedric37(My Father and My Guardian)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso
Now allow me to sit back and laugh hysterically.
He probably did...because its completely wrong.
You have absolutely no idea how plate armor even works, which is the reason why you try to mitigate the comparison of arrows with modern firearms.
Plate armor completely protects the wearer from all/most blunt trauma because once the impact fails to penetrate the steel plate, the entire section of the plate starts travelling along with the object hitting it which again...causes the entire section of the armor(eg. the entire breastplate) to pressure the padded gambeson underneath.
Why is this important you ask?
Because it creates the effect of pressing onto a large spread sponge that absorbs the impact because the impact of the object itself is then spread across the entire side of the padded gambeson that is hit...which is pretty much the reason why high quality padded armor was regarded with equal importance as the plate armor that surrounded it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEX21WgJzA8&t=28m0s
As you see, a man getting hit frontally with a couched lance can continue the conversation seconds later without any reaction whatsoever.
This, alongside swarms of accounts of knights getting repeatedly shot point blank with muskets and continuing the fight, pretty much tells us all we need to know about the effect of arrows against plate armor(they were completely useless).
Hahaha...heh.
No...there aren't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk&t=1m30s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq03z9Hkq2s&t=10m15s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq03z9Hkq2s&t=11m0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76mbOMFjlu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1K2DZ7NUoM
"Some recent tests" - You are full of..."recent tests"
Yes it is...very much...in the battle of Crecy out of an estimated 2000-2150 dead French "armors" 1,542 of them were found at the English frontline because they died fighting in melee.
There are loads of battles where knights had such few dead that they were all mentioned by name, the most hilarious one of course, the battle of La Brossinière, where 314 French knights charged an extremely well dug in baggage train position in a forest completely massacring an entire combined arms unit of 2000 inf and 800 longbows only loosing a single knight named John Le Roux.
Complete and utter nonsense.
What is described in that fairy tale is an account of an arrow travelling through more fabric, flesh and armor than a bullet fired from a modern firearm.
Also it is completely scientifically impossible because the tip of any arrow will be blunted by the time it penetrates the front side of the armor...so penetrating through the flesh(slowing down) and penetrating through the back side of the armor(transition from flesh to metal) is completely impossible even with the most powerfull bow that the most powerfull human being can draw.
Also;
Killing a horse with a single sidestruck arrow?
I lol at your general direction.
Again;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso
The archer is from the British warbow society firing a very high end longbow from 5-10m distance...this link alone pretty much defeats everything anyone has to say...period.
Except that he wasn`t using the type of arrows SPECIFICALLY MADE TO PENETRATE ARMOUR, and he only fired ONE shot. This test is just as laughable as the rest of them.
So anybody know of papers on the subject in reputable academic journals of archaeology and history? If not, why do you feel qualified to argue about the topic? And if so, why haven't you referenced them?
Marius Marich, i wont even quote all of your post because its insane, all i think in my head is: I am a skinny dude (my highest weight was about 78kg and i am 1,91m tall, so i am almost a walking stickman). I see like this and i think: how the someone like me would be able to kill a knight? they are like ing walking wartanks.
This gets me back to my point being in this thread:
Playing as Hungary in Stainless Steel is very, very, very hard. Your early age infantry is a joke, and the lack of knights is hard to combine. Magyars were supposed to use the hit and run tactics, and they were cavalry-archer based also, its very hard to inflich impact with them. althou, i've found myself in some heroic victories against the (ing) byzantines. Its just one problem: it was impossible to take their general down. the bodyguards were OP with that heavy armour, there was a match i lost about 90 soldiers or so against a general alone, with no bodyguards.
Again, though, i do agree, cavalry had problems against the english longbow yes, because of their horses. Even seeing all of this (deep) debate with loads of "sources", i do find myself now, more believing in the fact Amours WERE the real might. they wouldnt waste so many resources (and technology, for the time) in heavy gothic plates if they didnt served the cause. I remember watching a doc. about Chinese PAPPER armour. They would make Thick and heavy plates using papper, and place one on top of the the other, there were reports of soldiers storming gates looking like porcupines from how many arrows were stuck on them, and when they tested it: even if the most powerful arrow COULD pierce through ONE plate of the papper armour, there was another beneath it, since they were superimposed. I couldnt find a video about it, but since a papper chinese armour of ancient times could block arrows (also from ancient times but still...) i dont see why not a plate designed for the purpose of blocking arrows wouldnt block arrows. The Longbow "myth" is a beautiful story about how a weapon was so important for a country, i guess. And as much as there are some people who say that even the composed bow could fire stronger/longer distances, i dont believe an arrow could pierce steel plate like that. I hope i didnt sound confused and i added something to this conversation also
Nothing beats the good old longbow/armour discussion... except the good old discussion whether cavalry charges were for real or not...
As you clearly see;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso&t=0m52s
When they were shooting at the flesh itself they used a broadhead arrow point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CULmGfvYlso&t=1m50s
...and they clearly switched to the bodkin point when shooting at the "armor".
Actually let me google that for you just in case;
https://www.google.hr/search?q=bodki...arrow&tbm=isch
Now stop shedding longbow tears and behave.
Many of us do, but we see no point in wasting our time(it takes a score of time to make a professional post with actual academic sources) to present them whilst everyone else doesn't even seem to have the decency to post wikipedia articles. I used to be dumb enough to make posts of that kind but would just receive replies of people just posting walls of opinion based texts that had no basis in reality which was...of course, extremely frustrating
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...ing-arrowheads
http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-w...f-plate-armour
Roam around this gem of a site...if you really have a craving for bowman fanboy tears.
I do.
...The amount of free time some people have
I'm not even going to watch any of those videos, or attempt to post any replies. That was clearly not a needle bodkin arrowhead. I'd rather not spend the 3 hours a day I have to spare while I'm not working or studying to debate you. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
ANYWAYS, in regards to the OP saying that armoured infantry should be more mobile, I agree, however perhaps only those with the highest tier armour as they would have their suits tailored, which of course would make them more flexible and mobile. A feudal knight in heavy mail would perhaps have a harder time running, even though mail is nowhere near as cumbersome as mainstream thinking would have it be.
You mean a needle bodkin point like the one in the first Royal Armories link? The one they concluded was probably not designed for anti-armor purposes?
People have a tendency to disregard evidence that dismantles their fantasy. Surely all those games and movies couldn't have lied to them???