Jesus fuck what was even the point of designing such a shitty weapon

File: retard.jpg (95KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1280x720px

>>1921372

>>1921372
t. Anglo

>>1921372
You don't need a bajillion years of bow training to handle one.

>>1921372

>this triggers the pikeman

You know the people who get a airplane and go like 40-3 in a Battlefield game and then ragequit the server if they get shot down?

Basically that but with knights.
>muh chivalry
>muh horses
>1v1 me
>crossbow coward weapon!

>>1921372
Takes little to no training to use one, even less than a bow.

There is a reason the pope tried to get them banned anon.

What kind of damage did crossbow bolts do on impact?

Did they break and tear bone and tissue or go clean through the body or staple limbs?

any sources that recount their use specifically?

No training required. Richard the Lionheart hated them for this reason. Ironically, he died from injuries received after being hit by one.

>>1922406
Lethal enough. A good portion of US states ban them in archery hunting seasons as being "unsporting", and otherwise only allow them in rifle season or for physically disabled or aged hunters.

>>1922435
Well, having a lovely stroll around hostile chateau forces without armor wasn't the smartest idea.

>>1921372
make enemy dead

File: crossbowman_by_lordgood-d73mcnh.png (488KB, 554x954px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 554x954px

>>1921812
no, triggering this kills the pikeman from 100 yards.

>>1922475
>[...] or for physically disabled or aged hunters.

Why though? If I was old and frail or physically disabled, a crossbow wouldn't be my weapon of choice since handling one in that situation seems to be way more inconvenient than simply using a rifle.

>>1922665
Because you can't use a rifle during archery hunting season, dumbass.

File: 1468853676746.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>1922389
>kniggers gets so triggered that they appeal to the church to ban ranged weapons

>>1922869

You must be pretty stupid.

>>1921372

Crossbows aren't that good compared to bows when it comes to penetrating well-done armor (3mm thickness where it counts).

They sure pack a punch but their best feature is being able to aim for long and being ableto have a shot ready when it matters.

>>1922881
>(3mm thickness where it counts)
there never was such thing. plate armour thickness varied roughly from 1- to 1.8mm.

>>1922890

>plate armour thickness varied roughly from 1- to 1.8mm

Nope.

>>1921372

This is the weekly "X weapon is shit why were medieval people monkeys" thread but I'll take the bait anyway

>Significantly less training/physical condutioning needed to shoot
>Can be loaded and given to someone else, meaning even cripples, women and children can defend a wall or a house
>Can be loaded and left loaded, being shot only at the precise moment needed rather than having to go through the entire loading and drawing action
>can be significantly more powerful than longbows

>>1922435

The lionheart loved crossbows. He was shot while wandering around taking potshots at the defenders with his own crossbow.

>>1922900
yes.

>>1922912

list your sources

>>1922923
just look from the wikipedia, you were the one to claim that they were fucking 3mm thick. that's thickness for lightly armoured military vehicles of today and even modern armours made for buhurt aren't that thick and they're made to be almost twice as heavy as originals.

>>1922940

>just look from the wikipedia

oh, so you don't have any

>you were the one to claim that they were fucking 3mm thick

No, I didn't say that the overall thickness was 3, of course it wasn't. I said that was the thickness were it counted, like the space alongside the center ridge.

>>1922940
>>1922940

He's going to pull out some 17th century breastplate that was worn by itself, and claim its an example of the overall thickness of every type of plate armour.

>>1922946

No, I didn't, retard, because I never said the words "overall thickness" in the first place.

Kinda off topic but why did armys stop using longbows and crossbows all together, surely they would have been useful during the age of line infantry using muskets, say line infantry shooting guns with crossbows/ longbows shooting from behind the lines.

>>1921372
On top of everything said. This 'shitty' weapon changed the face of the 100 Years War. It was primarily for penatrating heavy armour and wasn't a hassle like the English longbow. If you think it's shit now in comparison to a rifle than yeah it's shit. But it was the rifle of its time

>>1922996
black powder and lead balls are simply a lot cheaper, easier and faster to produce in industrial scale. you can cast enough ammunition for the whole army at once but every single arrow/bolt is handmade and needs several phases and resources to make.

>>1921445
/thread

>>1922649
imagine being shot at while still trying to hold pike formation
at least ancient and medieval soldiers had shields they could somewhat protect themselves with, pikemen just have their pants down at all times

>>1923033
what if pikeman have crossbow too

pikeman would be irl op

>>1922890
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGj0M-NJDGA

That's of course about later cuirasses, but earlier plate armors really don't need to be 3mm thick to be effective against bows and crossbows, and that ~1,5mm will be more than enough.

>The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period (History of Warfare) by Alan Williams
The Milanese armourers in 14th and 15th claimed that they used crossbows to test their plate armor.

>>1923010
>>1922996
Firearms were far more powerful, had a longer effective range, are much easier to aim, and can be used from behind cover or in a trench. Those are the actual reasons given by 16th century English military men for abandoning the longbow completely because firearms did everything so much better.

Economics of training or expense of the munitions had nothing to do with the decision. Under the trained band system, it actually cost the government a significant amount of money to train a musketeer, while the government actually *made* money by levying fines on men who didn't practice with their bows. While powder and shot might be cheaper than an arrow shot-for-shot, this hardly mattered, since a firearm easily cost 10x more than a bow in the first place. It would have taken about ninety to a hundred arrows to make up for the difference.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A04863.0001.001/1:8.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A05277.0001.001?view=toc

>>1922400
The same pope also wanted to ban bows, slingshots and knightly tournaments. I love how everyone cherrypicks the crossbow part.

File: 1423658593154.gif (787KB, 91x125px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 91x125px

>>1922874

>>1921372

it kills people

>>1922665
>>1922686
Also a crossbow can use some kind of assist to help the user cock it with less force. Grandpa might still be able to handle a 175lb pull, but he might not be able to hold it like you need to do with a bow any more.

File: 3c12202598fa.jpg (75KB, 475x700px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 475x700px

>>1921372
It's pretty good actually.

It's rate of fire is a downside compared to a longbow but outside of that the crossbow is equal or better. You won't be shooting at full rate of fire for hours on end though, there will be days when chucking two arrows an hour at some lads on a castle wall is all you will do.

>>1921372
Nonsense, crossbows were great when applied in sieges, ambushes etc... The Hussites for example made great use of crossbows and early handguns in thier wagon forts. Shit, some modern armies still use crossbows believe it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Modern_use

>>1922910
I thought knights weren't allowed to use crossbows? Whole muh honor thing and all.

>>1922649
Kek

>>1922996
Because longbows were fucking shit by comparison.

>>1924312

>allowed

Real life isn't a video game. The crossbow won't zip back to the knights inventory when he tries to equipment it because it's not compatible with his character class.

>>1925645
I never heard about a knight using crossbow.

>>1925645
I think his point was it was looked down upon when a knight used a crossbow or firearm.

Which was true because, muh honour.
Warrior classes in every age have had this.

From the Spartans looking down at slings and bows, to the Japanese samurai looking down at firearms (at first)

It comes down to muh honour and martial culture

>>1921372
>>>/k/

>>1925695
Fuck off

>>1925664
>>1925687

Richard I at Acre.

Knights are generally busy training to be commanders and heavy cavalry or infantry rather than dicking around with ranged weapons.

File: Medieval-Arquebusier[1].jpg (121KB, 652x300px)

121KB, 652x300px

>>1925687
>>1925705

>>1926320

Just because a man isin armour, doesn't mean that he's a knight.

>>1922665

because they are trying to train an old peole / tard crossbow unit in the event of an invasion

>>1926797
Just because a man is a heavily armored lancer in the 15th century doesn't mean that he's a knight either. What's your point?

>>1927228
that what you posted is not a knight?

>>1927228

That a knight is a very specific social and political rank, not just any guy in armour.

>>1924312
The princes of the First Crusade even used crossbows during the siege of Jerusalem.

What else would they do? Chuck rocks at them?

>>1927450
fight in melee like men

>>1927588
Typical nobility propaganda. 20 years of training, experience and expenses equaling to buying your own private jet in modern sense all wasted because some peasant picked up a crossbow

>>1927590
>samurai could cut arrows before they reached them
>knights were too unskilled to cut bolts

>>1927588
How?

You're sitting like 40 yard away from them and they are on a wall or in a tower. Did you bring the worlds longest pike to fight them in melee?

>something needs to be guarded
>give some farmer down on his luck a promise of good pay, show him how to use a crossbow, and it's probably secure and anything needing a guard that you're afraid will get fucked, you'll hire a real guard for

>>1927631

Que?

>>1927640
The point of designing the crossbow was a factor of force and simplicity.

>>1927631
people really underestimate peasants they killed quite a few kings after all

>>1927702
Sure, but unless they've been training they probably wouldn't be great with a pike. A crossbow also has longer range than a pike.

File: eshop_1279_1.jpg (80KB, 450x600px)

80KB, 450x600px

>>1924074
D-did someone say hussites?

>>1927602
Lol no, samurai used balloons to deflect arrows. There skills were not to enough for an arrow to cut.

>>1922665
>giving a deadly weapon to some old fart or some disabled fuck because killing things is "Muh inalienable right"

>>1927602
>samurai didn't use a more convenient method of using shields