Redpill me on crossbows. Are they really as useless as I've been told?
>>1936503
Yes they were useless, that is why Crossbows were used so much despite being costly and it's why crossbow using mercenaries worked for such a high wage.
So bad in fact that that Europeans frequently commented that it terrified Mongols and Saracens (presumable due to it's awful quality).
The fact that even English king garrisoned their French possessions with crossbow wielding folks alongside longbows is something of an oddity.
Though it must be said pavises do a lot of good.
no, they weren't useles
>>1936532
what an asshole
>>1936532
Kek
Crossbows are a given. What I never managed to get my head around is stone slinging.
I mean, I get the concept, I see how a rock can hurt or potentially kill a lightly armored soldier, but I just can't believe stone slingers were effective military units compared to any other method of ranged attack.
>>1936503
Is this the new lindyspamming?
>>1937301
I don't even understand why his doesn't like lindy
>>1936532
Would you happen to know what battle this is a description of? And in the same course, which Prince of Wales?
>>1937350
Poitiers by La baker
>>1937297
they were essentially bullets. However they became dogshit useless after antiquity.
>>1937372
Poor French bastards attacked the wrong chivalrous motherfucker.
>>1937385
At least both sides agreed the battle was honorable.
>>1937385
>yfw Matt Easton criticised this picture for not having enough gore and the bascinets are slightly early
>yfw Matt Easton is criticising a Graham Turner painting for not being accurate enough and to try and be more authentic in future
>yfw you have no face because the sheer gall of the man has caused it to melt off.
>>1937297
they were only on par with pre-recuve bows, they were also significantly cheaper to equip but required someone to have been training with a sling since childhood.