Lars Andersen: a new level of archery

[Cyclops]

...
Also, it was mentioned above that horse-bows were weaker than infantry bows. This isn't true, there are horse-bows with 100 pound draws....

I seem to recall some Russian (maybe?) study of archery (comparing Turkish, old European and numerous other bow types) and the most powerful bows were Tartar bows from the Russian steppe, composite short bows for use on horseback (usually crossways IIRC). I wish I could find that source again.

[white-wolf]

...and the heavy armored knight has been training to kill anyone that comes close to him since the age of 7-12.
Reportedly they trained two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening...every single day.

If you get close to an armored opponent, you are most probably dead, otherwise all cultures on planet Earth would not spend mountains of money and resources into creating the most heavy armor possible.
Even the high end cavalry of the Seljuk and Mongol(actually, same goes for all eastern cavalry) were cladded in armor regardless of their love for mobility.

The reason why there are depictions of lasso caught enemies is because of the sheer excitement, shock value and humiliation that it caused, not because it was common on the battlefield.
For similar reasons there are depictions of swords cutting through helmets(proven to be completely impossible in most scenarios), artists like cool looking flashy stuff, they liked it then and they like it now.

Battles were fought in formations, not in scrambled free for all where everyone rode around each other like grasshoppers.

If you are close enough to get a lasso around an enemy it probably means that you are equally close to 100s of his friends all happy to get a chance to murder you.



......

Of course lasso is inefficent in formation. However the whole point of steppe warfare is create caos and break enemy formation, isolate enemy to manageable chunks and overhelm them with temporary superior numbers. Also, a heavily armored knight is cumbersome and slow, steppe warfare prefer agility and mobility. In short; bring caos to enemy troops, break enemy formations, isolate them in groups or alone, and bring lethal attack.

And, to use lasso you do not need to be in the reach of melee weapon of knight, bring two or three lasso users to around isolated knight, kill his horse under him and immobilite him and beat him with maces, or slit your knife in weak points in armor. You know the armored knights are not unbeatable unstoppable supermen. If this was the case, armored knights would win all their battles, which is not true naturally.

[dogukan]

You are mixing up the story by replacing bows with arrows.

Horse arches used to carry two/three different types of arrows for different purposes, however they carried a single bow since the one that they would use would probably be the only one they could effectively use on horseback.
There is not much leighway between draw weight of light bows that can be effectively used on horseback since it is extremely difficult to use a "heavy" warbow if you are not on foot.

The only exception were the mounted longbowmen, however they are reported to always dismount their horses and then shoot their bows from foot, essentially becoming mobile infantry.

Again, I am wondering, why are you so sure about this? You are on a horse and a composite bow does not even weigh one kg. I am not saying this was a common phenomena but there are depictions of even scythians carrying two bows(cant seem to find now).
In societies with more production capacity such as Mamelukes, Ottomans, Safavi Iran or Seljukids, Ghulams could have been armed with two bows.
I am not going to insist though until I find the sources again. I am just saying at this point that it is not a difficult task to take an extra bow in a tirkeş and put it on the horse. It is not only depicted but it is very plausible. If I knew how to ride a horse, I would go close to the enemy, stop my horse at about 15-20 meters and take my heavy bow..shooting from a static position on my horse. Keep in mind that I am talking about plausibility, I know I could get shot easily if I did that.
But in a battle, there could be many opportunities. There are millions of possible scenarios.

It is also important what you mean by "heavy" bow...after his research in Ottoman military museum, Adam Karpowicz measured Ottoman composite bows from 40 to 240 lbs and he thinks that about 70-180 lbs were probably used in combat. It is doubtful that people used +100 on horse-back but 70-80 lbs are not exactly light but also not difficult to draw for a regularly trained person. I can draw 55 easily and I only train once a week.

No army in human history was made up of entirely horse archers, even the Mongols had 40-60% horse archers maximum.
Without heavy professional melee units there is no way of actually winning a battle.

I wasn't comparing static face to face armies. I was comparing warriors on one on one or scenarios or something that would make their individual abilities shine. Things are very different in combined arms combat.

Besides, horse-archer was not simply an archer, he was a lancer and mace-sabre armed warrior at the same time. Especially in the later periods. You are thinking of horse-archer as a single skirmish role combatant.

Their bows simply could not penetrate gambesons that were worn underneath their mail.

There are a few things I'd like to say here.
Yes, gambeson in most scenarios will not be penetrated. There is a probability that it can be pierced but it is a low chance depending on the power of the bow, type of arrow and its angle-speed and the chaos aspect of quantum physics.
Secondly, was the whole army wearing gambesons? This I do not know, when I talk about horse archers I am not talking about the Crusades period alone. You have a quiet euro-centric position here. Horse archery had been around for a very long time, long before knights and continued even after knights in a very large geography from central-eastern europe, middle east to central and east asia.
Third, a knight did not make up the majority of the force and was quiet meaningless against mobile horse archers if dismounted. A horse archer does not need to deliver a killing blow to the head or chest, a shot to the leg or an arm or a weak spot in the armor will do the trick as well as to the horse. All these scenarios could easily make the knight an ineffective combatant.

Remember, I am not talking about combined arms scenarios. I am talking about hypothetical scenarios when the knight is not protected by crossbowman.

In addition to this, it depends on the bow and arrow. There are many tests when chainmail and plate armor was pierced.
Though I haven't come across anybgambeson-composite bow tests...you have to keep in mind that composite bow continued to technologically develop in the following periods. An Ottoman bow of 15th century was significantly superior to a bow from 12th century.

Again, horse archers were extremely important and were of immense use on the battlefield, however, they were used as skirmish troops that would try its best to create a perfect situation for the main force before the main assault.

Horse archers WERE the main-force though. At least in many cases. Horse-archer would do his archery in a certain combat-phase, and then his melee in another. Horse archers were not a "seperate" force like in total war games. Surely, there were more specialized melee cavalry and infantry but in the case of Turkic-Mongol forces, from Yabguids, Khazars, Avars,(skipping Huns due to complications) to Seljukids and Ottomans(don't exactly know the Mameluke and Safavid armies but Safavids were also most likely horse-archer dominated with Mamelukes perhaps relying more on local populations, depending on the time period and availability of nomads as opposed to core Ghulams) most fighters were horse archers that would engage in melee later in the combat.

I might be extreme in my guesstimate but I know for a fact that Seljukid and Ottoman armies(until 16th century), were made up of mostly light-medium horse-archer cavalry that were also armed with maces, sabres and lances as well as some form of protection such as chain mail.

At least my point is that horse-archer was a multi-purpose warrior that could turn into relatively heavy cavalry. It was not a separate skirmish fighter, though there were indeed separate even lighter skirmish fighters such as raiders/akıncı.

Well in a battle, knights would simply stay with the main infantry force that usually had ranged troops(bows or x-bows) that could outrange the horse archers.
In skirmishes, either the knights would straight up win, or the horse archers would run out of ammo and leave.
Crusaders would mostly use Turkopoles against them.

I am not objecting this.
For the horse-archer dominated armies, battle was not a single encounter, it was a hunt, it was a process that was planned significantly to lure the enemy and ambush it. Hard-power was used only when necessary. This ended only with the Ottomans and gunpowder era when more static lines became important as well as formations as opposed to individual skills.

An infamous account of a single knight protecting a village from a band of horse archers;

"…and whilst the Turks were fleeing before him, they (who shoot as well backwards as forwards) would cover him [Walter of Châtillon] with arrows. When he had driven them out of the village, he would pick out the arrows that were sticking all over him; and put on his coat-of-arms again… Then, turning round, and seeing that the Turks had come in at the other end of the street, he would charge them again, sword in hand, and drive them out. And this he did about three times in the manner I have described." - The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville, (Ch.XVII).

That would be a funny sight and is closer to what I am talking about

[NikeBG]

No they weren't.
There is no mention of this anywhere.

Really?
Niketas Choniates, Historia: "...And indeed the Scythians surrounded them from all sides. And they, as the fight was in close quarters [melee], pressed tight by the numerous Scythians, were falling from their horses, as many [Scythians] were surrounding one [Latin]. Thus these wicked men [the Latins] had their throats cut with scythes or they were strangled with nooses [lassos], while their horses were being slaughtered..."

No they weren't.Again, complete fiction.

...and pretty insane considering the amount of bodyguards the lasso user would have to go through to get to the Emperor of the Roman Empire.

Really?
Vita Ioanicii: "...The enemies pursued them in the rear and a great carnage came to be, so even the emperor himself was caught by some kind of noose [lasso] and dragged behind like a prisoner into the hands of those heathens. As he saw this, the most courageous Ioanikios, urged by divine zeal and arming himself with power from above, as the prophet would say, bravely jumped among them and immediately cut with his sword that noose I mentioned before - that fiendish invention - and thus saved the emperor in an unexpected way..."
Of course, in this I have a couple of remarks:
- It's often thought that in this case the lasso was the so-called arkan, i.e. a lasso on a staff. Though that obviously hardly fits the source as well as a normal lasso, considering a sword would more easily cut a rope instead of a staff.
- I'll also concede that another version of the Vita Ioanicii, by monk Sava, claims it was a dynatos [noble] who was captured by the noose and freed by Ioanikios, the emperor then rewarding him for his brave deed.

Lasso usage is romanticized and was probably used against already dismounted enemies and broken or fleeing armies.

Perhaps, but that doesn't in any way detract from what we've said. Lassos were used to good effect by the steppe people in their tactics of warfare, occasionally even against heavily armoured knights. No one here has said you only need a single guy with a lasso against a hundred knights, which you seem to imply in a typical strawman argument.

[Mangalore]

...

Perhaps, but that doesn't in any way detract from what we've said. Lassos were used to good effect by the steppe people in their tactics of warfare, occasionally even against heavily armoured knights. No one here has said you only need a single guy with a lasso against a hundred knights, which you seem to imply in a typical strawman argument.

Your two citations talk about a massacre and about a rout where lassos were used. In both states the enemy is already broken and heavily impaired in offering resistance. Aka the lasso was used to capture fleeing enemies or murdering surrounded and thus immobilized enemies.

The question is its use against an enemy still wanting to fight. Horse archers usually pelted such enemies with arrows and valiantly /sensibly ran away leaving any pursuers to heavy lancers. A thrown lasso is what, 3-10 metres tops? How fast do you think you can turn before another mounted enemy will be right next to you while you are busy with the rope and your horse?

Using it for capturing or pillaging etc. it is great and part of nomad life, just difficult to see it as anything exotic against an opponent facing you.

[NikeBG]

In the case of Adrianople, 1205, the Latins were still on their horses (since only their mounted forces took part in the battle, after the Cumans drew them into an ambush), pressed very tight and unable to spread out in formation. Though they were willing to fight (and the fight went on for hours, IIRC), they were not allowed to do so on their own terms, but on the Cumans' terms, which is why I underlie again that the lasso was a useful element of the steppe tactics of warfare, which is exactly what we see in Adrianople.

[+Marius+]

Really?
Niketas Choniates, Historia: "...And indeed the Scythians surrounded them from all sides. And they, as the fight was in close quarters [melee], pressed tight by the numerous Scythians, were falling from their horses, as many [Scythians] were surrounding one [Latin]. Thus these wicked men [the Latins] had their throats cut with scythes or they were strangled with nooses [lassos], while their horses were being slaughtered..."

That is indeed interesting, thank you.
I stand corrected.

However it still describes a battle that was over and the lassos being used against an already defeated enemy whose army was broken.

Really?
Vita Ioanicii: "...The enemies pursued them in the rear and a great carnage came to be, so even the emperor himself was caught by some kind of noose [lasso] and dragged behind like a prisoner into the hands of those heathens. As he saw this, the most courageous Ioanikios, urged by divine zeal and arming himself with power from above, as the prophet would say, bravely jumped among them and immediately cut with his sword that noose I mentioned before - that fiendish invention - and thus saved the emperor in an unexpected way..."

Now this I refuse to believe and I doubt this source.
It just sounds to ridiculous to be true.
The lasso wielder would have to go through the entire bodyguard of the Emperor to achieve such a feat.
Not to mention the Rambo style depiction of him jumping in the midst of enemies and all...sound like propaganda, regardless of whether it is an actual source of the period or a later invention merely used as a primary source.

- I'll also concede that another version of the Vita Ioanicii, by monk Sava, claims it was a dynatos [noble] who was captured by the noose and freed by Ioanikios, the emperor then rewarding him for his brave deed.

Now this is far more likely.

Perhaps, but that doesn't in any way detract from what we've said. Lassos were used to good effect by the steppe people in their tactics of warfare, occasionally even against heavily armoured knights. No one here has said you only need a single guy with a lasso against a hundred knights, which you seem to imply in a typical strawman argument.

That's not what I meant, I merely stated the obvious reasons why the lasso would not be used during the battle itself but rather on an already defeated opponent.

The use of Lassos in combat has been recorded for pretty much every steppe people from the various Scythian/Saka tribes to the Mongols. Historical texts give clear indications that Lassos were usually only used on dispersed, routing, etc. formations and troops, with some exceptions of course. But a lasso does outrange most "melee" weapons, barring something like the Contus maybe.

Yes, and they were never used in significant quantities or in pinched battles.

Also, it was mentioned above that horse-bows were weaker than infantry bows. This isn't true, there are horse-bows with 100 pound draws.

Have fun finding any legitimate historical evidence(apart from historians nonchalantly saying stuff they can't prove) of horse archers using 100+ pound bows.

I seem to recall some Russian (maybe?) study of archery (comparing Turkish, old European and numerous other bow types) and the most powerful bows were Tartar bows from the Russian steppe, composite short bows for use on horseback (usually crossways IIRC). I wish I could find that source again.

We have absolutely no idea about the average draw weight of the historical composite bows.
Everything we know today is from modern estimations often made by biased historians.

In modern times the Mongols still participate in traditional archery festivals which remain unchanged for centuries and they create light 30-70 pound draw bows and shoot at targets 40-70 meters away during competition.
Not exactly a good omen for the over exaggerated proposals from certain modern historians who speak of ludicrous 400-500 meters ranged 180lb bows that were supposedly shot from horseback.

Of course lasso is inefficent in formation. However the whole point of steppe warfare is create caos and break enemy formation, isolate enemy to manageable chunks and overhelm them with temporary superior numbers. Also, a heavily armored knight is cumbersome and slow, steppe warfare prefer agility and mobility.

Armored knights were never cumbersome or slow, that is a modern myth.
They were extremely agile and trained, otherwise their military class would not last centuries and prove to be successful at fighting everyone they faced.
Even the Mongolian elite bodyguard of Batu-khan at the battle of Mohi got massacred when they tried to engage western knights frontally.

And, to use lasso you do not need to be in the reach of melee weapon of knight, bring two or three lasso users to around isolated knight, kill his horse under him and immobilite him and beat him with maces, or slit your knife in weak points in armor.

Again, you are talking about charging an individual knight...with more numbers, what is everyone else from his side doing?

You know the armored knights are not unbeatable unstoppable supermen. If this was the case, armored knights would win all their battles, which is not true naturally.

Yeah tell that to this guy;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

-Battle of Garigliaon, December 29, 1503, two hundred lightly armed soldiers attacked him alone on a bridge, guess who won?
Both French, Spanish and Papal sources that were present on the battlefield speak the same story so it is no legend or over exaggeration.
Armor works, deal with it.

Again, I am wondering, why are you so sure about this? You are on a horse and a composite bow does not even weigh one kg. I am not saying this was a common phenomena but there are depictions of even scythians carrying two bows(cant seem to find now).
In societies with more production capacity such as Mamelukes, Ottomans, Safavi Iran or Seljukids, Ghulams could have been armed with two bows.
I am not going to insist though until I find the sources again. I am just saying at this point that it is not a difficult task to take an extra bow in a tirkeş and put it on the horse. It is not only depicted but it is very plausible. If I knew how to ride a horse, I would go close to the enemy, stop my horse at about 15-20 meters and take my heavy bow..shooting from a static position on my horse. Keep in mind that I am talking about plausibility, I know I could get shot easily if I did that.
But in a battle, there could be many opportunities. There are millions of possible scenarios.

Yeah well, mentions of horse archers using two or more bows remain few or none.

It is also important what you mean by "heavy" bow...after his research in Ottoman military museum, Adam Karpowicz measured Ottoman composite bows from 40 to 240 lbs and he thinks that about 70-180 lbs were probably used in combat. It is doubtful that people used +100 on horse-back but 70-80 lbs are not exactly light but also not difficult to draw for a regularly trained person. I can draw 55 easily and I only train once a week.

Anyone who "measured"() historical eastern bows as being up to 180 - 240 lbs is a complete and utter moron, regardless of his prior academic achievements and titles.

I wasn't comparing static face to face armies. I was comparing warriors on one on one or scenarios or something that would make their individual abilities shine.

That barely ever happened.
This is not Deadliest warrior.

Besides, horse-archer was not simply an archer, he was a lancer and mace-sabre armed warrior at the same time. Especially in the later periods. You are thinking of horse-archer as a single skirmish role combatant

Good luck fulfilling a role of lancer and horse archer at the same time, they probably managed to sheath their cavalry lance on their backs just like in Mount and Blade
Also, I am not limiting horse archers to strictly ranged combat, I am just saying that their lack of armor made them extremely vulnerable in close combat and their skill(which was gained through decades of training) was simply to valuable to be thrown away so easily.
It is the same as the ridiculous myth of longbowmen charging into melee against the French knights completely ignoring the actual fact that it was the English knights and armored man at arms who faced them once they reached into melee.

angle-speed and the chaos aspect of quantum physics.

Quantum physics?

Secondly, was the whole army wearing gambesons?

Yes, mostly.

This I do not know, when I talk about horse archers I am not talking about the Crusades period alone. You have a quiet euro-centric position here. Horse archery had been around for a very long time, long before knights and continued even after knights in a very large geography from central-eastern europe, middle east to central and east asia.

Gambesons of different kinds/materials were worn everywhere they just had a different name and production process.

Third, a knight did not make up the majority of the force and was quiet meaningless against mobile horse archers if dismounted. A horse archer does not need to deliver a killing blow to the head or chest, a shot to the leg or an arm or a weak spot in the armor will do the trick as well as to the horse. All these scenarios could easily make the knight an ineffective combatant.

I simply can't believe how many times do I have to repeat the fact that horse archers were rarely mentioned as effective against heavy cavalry.
They just weren't.
I'm sorry.

It is as if I am hitting a sponge.

Remember, I am not talking about combined arms scenarios. I am talking about hypothetical scenarios when the knight is not protected by crossbowman.

Seriously?
How about I start talking about scenarios where a horse archer rides into a dead end street in a city?
Christ.

In addition to this, it depends on the bow and arrow. There are many tests when chainmail and plate armor was pierced.

Modern tests, which are idiotic and worthless.
There is not a single named person ever killed by an arrow or bolt while wearing plate armor...not a single one in the history of plate armor usage.

you have to keep in mind that composite bow continued to technologically develop in the following periods. An Ottoman bow of 15th century was significantly superior to a bow from 12th century.

Not true.
There were barely any changes to the bow, similar to the unchanged longbow that remained nearly identical for nearly 500 years.

Horse archers WERE the main-force though. At least in many cases. Horse-archer would do his archery in a certain combat-phase, and then his melee in another. Horse archers were not a "seperate" force like in total war games. Surely, there were more specialized melee cavalry and infantry but in the case of Turkic-Mongol forces, from Yabguids, Khazars, Avars,(skipping Huns due to complications) to Seljukids and Ottomans(don't exactly know the Mameluke and Safavid armies but Safavids were also most likely horse-archer dominated with Mamelukes perhaps relying more on local populations, depending on the time period and availability of nomads as opposed to core Ghulams) most fighters were horse archers that would engage in melee later in the combat.

Every single of the cultures/armies you mentioned barely had a fifth/sixth of their armies composed of horse archers.
You could have gone with the Mongol argument, but they are the only ones...and you didn't.

I might be extreme in my guesstimate but I know for a fact that Seljukid and Ottoman armies(until 16th century), were made up of mostly light-medium horse-archer cavalry that were also armed with maces, sabres and lances as well as some form of protection such as chain mail.

You have absolutely no idea about the compositions of the Turkish armies, that became apparent after you mentioned the Ottomans whose armies, not only that they weren't comprised of mainly horse archers but actually not even composed predominantly of cavalry at all since the majority of their forces were infantry units in almost every single engagement they fought in.

I am not objecting this.
For the horse-archer dominated armies, battle was not a single encounter, it was a hunt, it was a process that was planned significantly to lure the enemy and ambush it. Hard-power was used only when necessary. This ended only with the Ottomans and gunpowder era when more static lines became important as well as formations as opposed to individual skills.

[white-wolf]

@Marius Marich: It seems you continuesly missing the point I have been making; steppe warfare depends to distrub enemy formation. Of course armored knight massed in formation with their huge war mounts are unstoppable in open plain. Any honest-to-his-salt steppe warrior does not battle with a armored knight head-on. Steppe warrior is not stupid.

[NikeBG]

That is indeed interesting, thank you.
I stand corrected.

However it still describes a battle that was over and the lassos being used against an already defeated enemy whose army was broken.

No, it's actually the beginning of the battle itself, i.e. immediately after the Cumans succeeded in baiting the knights into a trap far, far away from their camp. And yet the battle supposedly went on for hours more. The description provided by Choniates here also suggests this happened only to the knights of Louis de Blois, who initially broke the orders not to pursue the Cumans, and is before the arrival of emperor Baldwin and his knights. In other words, those lassos and scythes (some people translate them as hooks or bills, though I'd rather find it harder to cut someone's throat with a bill than with a scythe) were used well into the battle itself, due to the Cumans simply being vastly superior in numbers and successful in applying their tactics.

Now this I refuse to believe and I doubt this source.
It just sounds to ridiculous to be true.
The lasso wielder would have to go through the entire bodyguard of the Emperor to achieve such a feat.
Not to mention the Rambo style depiction of him jumping in the midst of enemies and all...sound like propaganda, regardless of whether it is an actual source of the period or a later invention merely used as a primary source.

You can do whatever you want. You said "this thing doesn't exist", I showed you it clearly exists, but what you do with it is entirely not my concern.
Also, it's not the lasso-wielder (and, again you keep using your strawman, suggesting that only one single lasso-wielder would have to break through an entire, organized, full-strength imperial bodyguard unit) who jumps in the midst of his enemies, but Ioanikios, jumping among the Bulgars (which itself suggests there were several Bulgars, among already fleeing Byzantines).

[Tankfriend]

Armored knights were never cumbersome or slow, that is a modern myth.

And a very persistent modern myth, at that. It's correct that a full suit of armour is rather heavy, indeed. Let's say a (generous!) absolute total of 30-40kg to cover the full suit of plate (20-25kg), mail armour underneath (5-10kg), and padded clothing underneath that (max 5kg)? But what people often don't realize is that all of that weight will be very evenly distributed over your entire body in case of a well-crafted armour. That makes it much easier and more comfortable to wear than its sheer weight might infer.
Also, decently-designed plate armour will mimick all of the vital joints of your body, so it's not actually restricting your freedom of movement a lot, either. As such, it's not really surprising you can find videos of people doing pretty much whatever they want in a full suit of armour - riding a bike, acrobatics, playing basketball...

[white-wolf]

And a very persistent modern myth, at that. It's correct that a full suit of armour is rather heavy, indeed. Let's say a (generous!) absolute total of 30-40kg to cover the full suit of plate (20-25kg), mail armour underneath (5-10kg), and padded clothing underneath that (max 5kg)? But what people often don't realize is that all of that weight will be very evenly distributed over your entire body in case of a well-crafted armour. That makes it much easier and more comfortable to wear than its sheer weight might infer.
Also, decently-designed plate armour will mimick all of the vital joints of your body, so it's not actually restricting your freedom of movement a lot, either. As such, it's not really surprising you can find videos of people doing pretty much whatever they want in a full suit of armour - riding a bike, acrobatics, playing basketball...

I believe you are mentioning modern materials. And you want me believe to a person carrying at least 40 kg is agile and quick. Have you ever carry 30 kg weight? or 50?

[dogukan]

@Marius

Putting your issues, personal obsessions and armored knight fantasies as well as "we are in a fight and I'll beat you" attitude aside, there are some things I ll touch upon.

Again, foremost, we are talking about history, and we are talking about combat which we do not really have a clear picture of. Secondly, I don't really give much **** regarding superiority of a certain kind of warrior...you seem to have some nationalist pride linkage here somewhere. I kind of sensed that when you mentioned knights "charging into 10 000 MUSLIMS" as if it is a factor here.
I hope you get my position here and that I am only thinking about what we know so far of and possibilities. Military history matter pretty much none when it comes to practical things as well, so to be quiet frank, I only care about this as a hobby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your knight fantasies are also coming from some historical depictions or heroism stories so you should keep that in mind when talking to people about "propoganda" aspect of things.

* 180-240 lbs are not thought to be for combat purposes. The assumption is that 180 lbs was perhaps the tops for combat. The range is somewhere starting from 70-80 lbs to 100s....upper 100s are not common, no one claimed that.

*I am comparing warrior's individual skills, whether you like it or not..this is not piss contest and you are not a knight. So you have nothing to prove to me here.
My argument was not based on this will beat this army any day, I was comparing MARTIAL SKILLS and their potentials ffs.

*Yeah real world is not mount and blade but a bow weighs a freaking kilo and you just put it in a little bag. Lancer might have been an extreme word since they were specialized shock troops, what I meant was more in line with cavalry that is able to charge with spears.
There are many horse archers that were heavily armed as well. A typical Ghulam or a palace-bound warrior in Turkic states and previous Muslim states would have a good deal of armor, even on his horse. What did a knight have in 12th century that a Ghulam did not have? Chainmail? Gambeson(or its version on that side of the world)? They also had melee weapons such as sabres and maces and they had composite bows.
The difference got significant in the high middle ages when plate armor was becoming common in the west, not in the 12th century.
And, to get an idea, early Ottoman armies were more reliant on cavalry and bows when they had the upper-hand against western armies in the 15th century. Horse-archery too was still the norm. And sipahis were armed with composite bows as well as medium armor. Sipahis also made the majority of the army in this period.
Ottoman army's shift to infantry happened in the 16th century.

*I don't know about the plate armor thing, I ll look for more academic stuff.

*How do you know there were barely any changes to the composite bow?
Now this is an area I can highlight and press on but I'd like to know what makes you think that?
Anyone interested in traditional archery in this part of the world can tell the difference between a Seljukid-Mongol era bow(s) and an Ottoman one.
That is because Ottomans continued using bow up until 17th century in the battlefield and to 19th century as a sport.
In fact Ottomans developed the design of composite bows to great lengths. When it became a sport, they also developed specialized devices and techniques for flight shooting...reaching record ranges of 800+ meters.
In the Ottoman archery clubs, the limit to get into a club is around 500 meters. Longbows were shooting what, 300 meters?
-I am not saying this as a combat effective thing, I am just trying to show you that you are quiet mistaken in thinking that the bows remained the same.....that is ridiculous.






*

[+Marius+]

No, it's actually the beginning of the battle itself, i.e. immediately after the Cumans succeeded in baiting the knights into a trap far, far away from their camp. And yet the battle supposedly went on for hours more. The description provided by Choniates here also suggests this happened only to the knights of Louis de Blois, who initially broke the orders not to pursue the Cumans, and is before the arrival of emperor Baldwin and his knights. In other words, those lassos and scythes (some people translate them as hooks or bills, though I'd rather find it harder to cut someone's throat with a bill than with a scythe) were used well into the battle itself, due to the Cumans simply being vastly superior in numbers and successful in applying their tactics.

Well it depicts an overwhelmed and surrounded unit getting slaughtered that's for sure.

You can do whatever you want. You said "this thing doesn't exist", I showed you it clearly exists, but what you do with it is entirely not my concern.

You gave me a source on an alphabet I cannot read written in a language I cannot understand and since I failed to locate a translation of your sources I politely took your word on it.

Also, it's not the lasso-wielder (and, again you keep using your strawman, suggesting that only one single lasso-wielder would have to break through an entire, organized, full-strength imperial bodyguard unit) who jumps in the midst of his enemies, but Ioanikios, jumping among the Bulgars (which itself suggests there were several Bulgars, among already fleeing Byzantines).

I don't think you understand my disbelief, there is not a moment during a battlefield where the Emperor/noble or king is not surrounded or supported by his bodyguard/retinue.
That is why I took it with a grain of salt.

Happy strawman to you to.

And a very persistent modern myth, at that. It's correct that a full suit of armour is rather heavy, indeed. Let's say a (generous!) absolute total of 30-40kg to cover the full suit of plate (20-25kg), mail armour underneath (5-10kg), and padded clothing underneath that (max 5kg)? But what people often don't realize is that all of that weight will be very evenly distributed over your entire body in case of a well-crafted armour. That makes it much easier and more comfortable to wear than its sheer weight might infer.
Also, decently-designed plate armour will mimick all of the vital joints of your body, so it's not actually restricting your freedom of movement a lot, either. As such, it's not really surprising you can find videos of people doing pretty much whatever they want in a full suit of armour - riding a bike, acrobatics, playing basketball...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Rm94QRREI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

[Tankfriend]

I believe you are mentioning modern materials. And you want me believe to a person carrying at least 40 kg is agile and quick. Have you ever carry 30 kg weight? or 50?

I have, and even when it's just for a short time with some rest in between, it's a torturous experience that noone would want to do unless it can't be avoided. But "carrying" is not the same as "wearing". 30-50kgs concentrated to your hands and arms are completely different from 30-50kg spread evenly around your body.

[+Marius+]

I believe you are mentioning modern materials. And you want me believe to a person carrying at least 40 kg is agile and quick. Have you ever carry 30 kg weight? or 50?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4&t=35m15s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4&t=30m0s

@Marius

Putting your issues, personal obsessions and armored knight fantasies as well as "we are in a fight and I'll beat you" attitude aside, there are some things I ll touch upon.

Again, foremost, we are talking about history, and we are talking about combat which we do not really have a clear picture of. Secondly, I don't really give much **** regarding superiority of a certain kind of warrior...you seem to have some nationalist pride linkage here somewhere. I kind of sensed that when you mentioned knights "charging into 10 000 MUSLIMS" as if it is a factor here.
I hope you get my position here and that I am only thinking about what we know so far of and possibilities. Military history matter pretty much none when it comes to practical things as well, so to be quiet frank, I only care about this as a hobby.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your knight fantasies are also coming from some historical depictions or heroism stories so you should keep that in mind when talking to people about "propoganda" aspect of things.

You are a sad person if you have to downgrade yourself to this kind of banter merely to jumpstart an argument.
I find it sad that merely debunking certain popular myths of the uselessness and inefficiency of armor can result in me being called an eurocentric chivalry fanboy.

*I am comparing warrior's individual skills, whether you like it or not..this is not piss contest and you are not a knight. So you have nothing to prove to me here.
My argument was not based on this will beat this army any day, I was comparing MARTIAL SKILLS and their potentials ffs.

No, what you are doing is exactly that.
After all examples of battlefield factors were cleared from the table you actually resorted to some foolish hypothetical 1 on 1 duels.
You are derailing a thread and insulting me for no reason and I, the fool that I am, have helped you by responding to you.

There are many horse archers that were heavily armed as well. A typical Ghulam or a palace-bound warrior in Turkic states and previous Muslim states would have a good deal of armor, even on his horse. What did a knight have in 12th century that a Ghulam did not have? Chainmail? Gambeson(or its version on that side of theworld)? They also had melee weapons such as sabres and maces and they had composite bows.The difference got significant in the high middle ages when plate armor was becoming common in the west, not in the 12th century.

Irrelevant and not part of the issue, this entire thread started as a revision of historical archery which spawned the "arrow vs armor" argument and not a comparison between the armies of "East" and "West".
I have pointed out that eastern cavalries also used heavy armor just as their western buddies, the fact that you failed to read my post is your problem, not mine.

And, to get an idea, early Ottoman armies were more reliant on cavalry and bows when they had the upper-hand against western armies in the 15th century. Horse-archery too was still the norm. And sipahis were armed with composite bows as well as medium armor. Sipahis also made the majority of the army in this period.
Ottoman army's shift to infantry happened in the 16th century.

You are talking out of the wrong orifice.

Battle of Dimbos(1303) = infantry with cav support
Battle of Pelekanon(1329) = 5000 infantry, 3000 cavalry, 300-500 horse archers
Battle of Bileća(1388) = 12 000 infantry, 6000 cavalry
Battle of Kosovo(1389) = 2,000 Janissaries, 2,500 of Murad's cavalry guard, 6,000 sipahis, 20,000 azaps(infantry) , 8,000 troops from his vassals(mostly infantry).
Battle of Nicopolis(1396) = Third of army is reported as cavalry, rest if infantry, this is supported by the description of the battle itself, battle won/decided by Serbian heavy knights who fought on Ottoman side
Battle of Varna(1444) = also a battle won nearly entirely by Ottoman infantry after being nearly wiped out by the initial charge of the heavy knights

I could go on but it only gets more inf-fy from here on

*I don't know about the plate armor thing, I ll look for more academic stuff.

Sure thing brah.

[white-wolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4&t=35m15s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4&t=30m0s

Are you saying this modern half replicas do represent 15th century fully armored knights? Are you comparing modern materials and today's materials. Who says these half shiny armor in the vids are authentic replicas of historical fully armored knights? How do we know the armor in the videos are not shiny light metal or plastic?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Your two citations talk about a massacre and about a rout where lassos were used. In both states the enemy is already broken and heavily impaired in offering resistance. Aka the lasso was used to capture fleeing enemies or murdering surrounded and thus immobilized enemies.

The question is its use against an enemy still wanting to fight. Horse archers usually pelted such enemies with arrows and valiantly /sensibly ran away leaving any pursuers to heavy lancers. A thrown lasso is what, 3-10 metres tops? How fast do you think you can turn before another mounted enemy will be right next to you while you are busy with the rope and your horse?

Using it for capturing or pillaging etc. it is great and part of nomad life, just difficult to see it as anything exotic against an opponent facing you.

Ammianus Marcellinus, describing steppe tactics (in his passage on the Huns)

And in one respect you may pronounce them the most formidable of all warriors, for when at a distance they use missiles of various kinds, tipped with sharpened bones instead of the usual points of javelins, and these bones are admirably fastened into the shaft of the javelin or arrow; but when they are at close quarters they fight with the sword, without any regard for their own safety; and often while their antagonists are warding off their blows they entangle them with twisted cords, so that, their hands being fettered, they lose all power of either riding or walking.

[+Marius+]

Are you saying this modern half replicas do represent 15th century fully armored knights? Are you comparing modern materials and today's materials. Who says these half shiny armor in the vids are authentic replicas of historical fully armored knights? How do we know the armor in the videos are not shiny light metal or plastic?

Wait, what?
There is no difference in weight between modern replicas and historical armor, the only difference is the quality of the steel it is made of, and the quality does not in any way impact weight.

This armor worn by king Henry VIII is only 22.91 kg;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The modern armors made for reenactors are no different in weight than those made in medieval times;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM6YbJ4XpjE&t=0m26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg

[Tankfriend]

A lecture at the Metropolitan Museum of Art by the Assistant Curator of the Department of Arms and Armor. Main parts about weight and flexibility of plate armour starts around 22 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4

And a pair of demonstrations, also by the MMA, about making and wearing plate armour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgzQ...kCQwbMtl73WQAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwR...kCQwbMtl73WQAE

[dogukan]

@Marius

I just do not understand how you managed to make this a fight-like argument. But again, I'll address the issues you've addressed:

* I understand your concern with debunking myths about armors. But I have a similar intention here as well especially regarding the role of bows, especially considering the issue with L.Anderson's video.
The problem is, you are using a very certain language with an obvious bias towards awesomeness of armored knights.
In a medieval battle outcomes could have varied greatly. One thing that works at one time might have failed another time....you have an unhealthy certainty.

No, what you are doing is exactly that.
After all examples of battlefield factors were cleared from the table you actually resorted to some foolish hypothetical 1 on 1 duels.
You are derailing a thread and insulting me for no reason and I, the fool that I am, have helped you by responding to you.

I am not insulting you buddy, I am just telling you to chill out...yes, I was CURIOUS as to how encounters between Romans-Crusaders and Turkics have happened..and there are multiple scenarios from border raids, clashes, to full-scale battles in combined arms.
You have said how horse archers were easy targets to crossbowman so it was not a scenario where horse-archer had an absolute advantage on the range.
So then I tried to picture other scenarios...you see I am doing this for fun and thought entertainment. I am not presenting a thesis.

Irrelevant and not part of the issue, this entire thread started as a revision of historical archery which spawned the "arrow vs armor" argument and not a comparison between the armies of "East" and "West".
I have pointed out that eastern cavalries also used heavy armor just as their western buddies, the fact that you failed to read my post is your problem, not mine.

It isn't irrelevant though because I am talking about horse archer being armored here. An elite combatant of a typical eastern army in the crusades period would have been a Eurasian originating horse-archer, full-time professional warrior Ghulam. These were not few in numbers as every high-ranking guy had the authority to raise ghulams.
They were armed with composite bows, armor that is if I am not missing anything equal to a knight at the time-period and various other melee weapons.

Remember that my issue here is the possibilities and potentials of horse-archers.
Not just how an arrow fares against armor.

You are talking out of the wrong orifice.

Battle of Dimbos(1303) = infantry with cav support
Battle of Pelekanon(1329) = 5000 infantry, 3000 cavalry, 300-500 horse archers
Battle of Bileća(1388) = 12 000 infantry, 6000 cavalry
Battle of Kosovo(1389) = 2,000 Janissaries, 2,500 of Murad's cavalry guard, 6,000 sipahis, 20,000 azaps(infantry) , 8,000 troops from his vassals(mostly infantry).
Battle of Nicopolis(1396) = Third of army is reported as cavalry, rest if infantry, this is supported by the description of the battle itself, battle won/decided by Serbian heavy knights who fought on Ottoman side
Battle of Varna(1444) = also a battle won nearly entirely by Ottoman infantry after being nearly wiped out by the initial charge of the heavy knights

here is what I said

And, to get an idea, early Ottoman armies were more reliant on cavalry and bows when they had the upper-hand against western armies in the 15th century. Horse-archery too was still the norm. And sipahis were armed with composite bows as well as medium armor. Sipahis also made the majority of the army in this period.
Ottoman army's shift to infantry happened in the 16th century

I might have mis-presented when I say sipahis made the majority of the army because when Ottomans went on war thousands of ghazis and unofficials troops as well as tons of logistical support went with them. My purpose was to rather say the main characteristic forces in the early period were more reliant on sipahis.
Azaps are not official troops exactly and vassals are also not core forces.
Janissaries and Sipahis have a direct connection to Ottoman state-bureucracy, that is what I tried to address but well..I can't blame you for I did not clarify it. The point is that the state could arrange the number- balance between these two groups which were in fact rivaling each other until Janissaries were wiped out.

Most sources I have came across said that the light-medium cavalry were the real force of the Ottomans in the early period that mattered on the battle-field. This balance shifted towards Janissaries with the improvements in the gunpowder in the 16th century and infantry's importance increased. In the early period however, Ottoman armies were based on cavalry tactics-combat. And a lot of the cavalry were armed with composite bows. As well as the janissaries. In fact there had been a lot of trouble in the Ottomans regarding the shift to gunpowder weapons due to tradition. It was more so a problem for the Mamelukes and Safavids.


In any case, now I am curious about bow performance and armor penetration. I talked to my group and we are going to try to recreate some of the stuff to see if it can be done.

If you are going to reply to me, so as to not go around circles, establish what your problem with what I am saying is...because I get unsure as to what I am even defending here.
Though I will say this for thought-provocation, in the Crusades period, I believe the ultimate warrior was the horse-archer for it could fulfill most of the roles in a combat scenario. Not the light harassment horse-archer, I am comparing the "elites" of the warfare in the period. An elite and armored horse archer had more advantages than an elite western knight the way I see it. For the horse-archer himself could have been armed quiet a lot like the knight. And were also trained from childhood, professional soldiers. They were also armed with weapons that tended make armor less effective, blunt-pierce weapons.
Instead of a knight's lance however, they had composite bows. We do not know exactly the poundage of horse-archer's bows but there are many indicators that show that they could use heavy-bows or that they did not have to use only "light" bows...at least the more elite, daily trained ones, not the skirmishing tribesmen. In anycase we have no clear evidence regarding hte poundage of bows..a lot of knowledge comes from Mamelukes and Ottomans from what I have seen so far, it is not an unrealistic estimate that a +100 lbs bow could be used on horse-back. At the very lest it depends on the position.