>it's a warrior race disregards ranged weapons as cowardly

>>48656584
Medieval Europe. Sure, bows were used, but where considered unhonorable peasant weapons by the noble knight class.

>expecting any kind of logic thinking from honourfags

>>48656584
>But spears and other polearms that are meant to keep the enemy as far away as possible are suddenly ok right

It's still a quantifiable difference to a bow. With a polearm you're face to face with the enemy and risking your life in hand-to-hand combat, even if your weapon is longer.

A lot of polearm techniques combined wrestling and quarterstaff techniques, too.

>>48656640

Knights were giant boneheads of course. I've read dozens of accounts of battles where knights refused to follow the overall plan and just charged headlong on their own initiative. At Crecy the French knights even rode over their own crossbowmen (and killed the ones who retreated) to reach the English lines.

>>48656714

Knight = noble

Crossbowman = filthy peasant

They should have known that the horses needed a better path to walk on

>>48656584
In the Iliad, Paris uses a bow and is portrayed as a coward. He shoots Diomedes right in the foot and Diomedes just laughs and slags him off for being a faggot
Teucer also used a bow, but cause he was greek and butt-buddies with best Ajax(I think?) he gets a better rep

>>48656584
The difference is in role.

Spears, polearms, etc. required strength, discipline. You were the warrior. You were the front line. If you broke the enemy, the battle was won. If you broke, the battle was lost. In some cultures, you would be heavily trained to endure fatigue and remain in formation.

On the other hand, the archers/slingers were the weaklings, the little boys, the untrained and incapable. They were the ones who were told, "here, take this and take potshots at the enemy. Just do whatever you can to help out." You did not capture land. You were not as elite. You were not in as much threat. You did not receive as much glory, or loot.

>>48656724

That kind of thinking is why the Frogs lost Crecy.

>>48656742
>In the Iliad, Paris uses a bow and is portrayed as a coward. He shoots Diomedes right in the foot and Diomedes just laughs and slags him off for being a faggot

Paris did kill Achilles by shooting him in the heel too.

Based archers. Hoplites can go suck Persian cock.

>>48656748
In the ancient era, these skirmishers mainly used slings. In the medieval era, they mainly used crossbows.

Bows took more practice, but there was still more glory in being a front-liner than a skirmisher.

>>48656779
Yeah, but only cause Fate and Destiny

And even though Hoplites aren't Homeric:
>What is Marathon?

>>48656750
Also the French were attacking up a hill. There's a (poorly maintained) monument at the site that you can climb up and view the lay of the land and where the French and English forces were. The English didn't have to move. Takes a lot to beat that.

>>48656748
I think you have gotten the wrong idea about archery. A warbow was not something for a weakling, longbowmen were beefy as fuck. Sure, they weren't knights, but
>weaklings, the little boys, the untrained and incapable
Not by a long shot. pun entirely unintentional

>>48656816
It's almost like they dun fucked up and chose a bad spot to meet the enemy.

>>48656822
Aye, people forget that it was law in England that every able man had to train with a longbow weekly.
There was even some (maybe disproven?) evidence to suggest that it warped the archer's bone structure

>>48656779
Yet hoplites trounced Persians.

>>48656822
>>48656850
I'm mainly thinking about ancient combat rather than medieval combat. In the ancient era, military doctrine primarily revolved around armies of infantry in tight formation, and all other types of soldier played a supporting role.

Later on, people started to think of bows as being valuable as well, and not just a weapon for the irregulars.

File: arnold-schwarzenegger-commando.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>48656584
Swords? They're for pussies. Manly men get up close.

Come on Bennett, throw away the chicken shit sword, you don't just want to swing that blade, you want to put the knife in me, and look me in the eye, and see what's going on in there when you turn it, that's what you want to do, right?
Come on, just between you and me, don't deprive yourself of some pleasure, come on Bennett, let's party!

>>48656871
The Persians used a lot of archers in the Greco-Persian wars. I mean it really depended on the contingent, like the Persians used bows and spears and so did the Medes I think, while the Ionians sent Greek Hoplites.
The whole "their arrows will blot out the sun."
"Then we will fight in the shade" exchange I think is in Herodotus, along with most of the badass lines in 300.
Laconic wit, best wit

>>48656911
>Knife
Nothing beats the tactile sensation of choking the life out of your enemy, feeling his struggles weaken, feel his last gasp, with your own two hands.

>>48656850
Quick googling gives me this, looked around but saw no articles about disproving the findings:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2235150/Elite-archers-drowned-aboard-Henry-VIIIs-flagship-Mary-Rose-identified-RSI.html
from 2012, and seems pretty legit. The archers are described pretty much exactly as I imagine them from The White Company/Sir Nigel

>>48656871
It's good to remember that while bows have been around for a long time, the specific type of heavy warbow utilized by the English was a new, high tech innovation for it's time.

>>48656871

There were horse archers in the ancient era. The Parthians gave the Romans a hard time with largely horse-archer armies.

Persian armies used lots of archers and light infantry too.

Before that you had chariot archers, though there would often be a spear guy in the chariot too.

>>48656584
I read once romans didnt think much of it and got auxiliary's to do it for them.

>>48656954
>the specific type of heavy warbow utilized by the English was a new, high tech innovation for it's time.
I find this view pretty euro-centric, anon. Composit bows are older and more refined than a simple longbow.

>>48656973
The horse-archers were considered barbarians. It was largely a tactic of convenience based on their culture, that just so happened to be very effective against a mainly-infantry army.

The Persian armies were trounced pretty badly by the Macedonians led by Alexander, and used greek tactics up until times became more modern.

The charioteers were mainly noblemen. The chariot was considered the ultimate war vehicle until Alexander demonstrated just how weak they actually were against an organized army, where they could be trapped to a halt in a nest of blades, and the drivers cut down.

>>48657007
For it's time and place then. Bows were also viewed very differently outside of Europe, being considered a weapon for nobles in many places.

Bows don't actually kill you as easily as other weapons, so I can see why people might be biased against them.

The same goes for early guns. Lots of Napoleonic soldiers got shot lots of times in their career. Infection is the problem, not the lethality of the weapon.

Melee fights generally end with someone crippled or dead because there's no other alternative.

>>48657602
It's not about killing outright, it's about incapacitation. Yeah, you might survive being hit by an arrow, but you're not going to keep on fighting with about an arm's length of wood sticking out of you, and a sharp piece of iron logded somewhere in your arm pit or somewhere else.

>>48657602
That's why. At least a sword has the decency to kill you.

>>48657722
I don't know Marcus Cassius Scaeva fought despite worse wounds and survived.

>>48657754
>alledgedly

>>48656724
the crossbowmen were mercs all the way from genoa

>>48656584
>it's a warrior race disregards ranged weapons as cowardly episode

What? What episode? What show?

Are you actually referring to something specific, or are you just complaining about some old cliche that fell out of fashion years ago?

>>48656942
>hands
A real man can kill any opponent with abs alone.

>>48658566
Entire pre cameras history is like this.

>>48656584
Samurai used lots of bows early on, and viewed it as honorable. Same with the numerous steppe tribes between asia and europe. The romans didn't consider ranged weapons cowardly at all, and used javelins pretty effectively, and later on adopted the horse archers of their eastern enemies too.

I think it's mostly a european knight thing, that whole situation with attempting to ban crossbows, etc. Like others have mentioned, the greeks seem to have had an issue with them as well, but that sort of attitude has never stopped ranged weapons from actually being used when they were useful.

The reason many civilizations thought arrows were fucking stupid is that they couldn't even pierce basic armor most of the time. Alexander outfitted his soldiers with mostly leather armor and small shields and lost very few men in combat against the Persians. He was almost killed by an arrow in India but Indians had access to better steel.

>>48658949
But the first sentence not only doesn't answer the question but adds something irrelevant to the discussion dumb weeb faggot. Also reminder samufags got REKT by Yi Sun Shin when they tried to invade Korea.

>>48658970
I need source for that leather armor statement.

>>48658970
*linen armor

>>48658949
The important thing to remember is despite all posturing to the contrary, most sensible people are pragmatic when they need to be.
All is fair in love and war, and all that

>>48658970
>The reason many civilizations thought arrows were fucking stupid is that they couldn't even pierce basic armor most of the time.
Dead french knights would beg to differ.

>>48659073
Except they were finished off in melee you fucktard the Agnicourt meme needs to end.

>>48659073
There are no records of french knights being killed by an arrow in this war.

>>48659092
>upset frenchman
Please.

>>48659073
Typical cause of death was drowning in the mud or being cut up by English soldiers. Longbows killed more people and fucked up more shields than the average bow but come on.

>>48659122
>americans are unironically retarded enough to believe arrows can pierce plate

don't forget vikings being epic warriors and samurai slicing tanks in half

>>48659164
>plate armor
>Hundred Years War
Pick one. This is why nobody takes /tg/'s interpretations of history seriously.

File: this is my pee pee.jpg (100KB, 696x900px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 696x900px

>>48658970
>>48658981
>>48659013
linothorax

>it's "arrows are useless against plate" episode
Reminder that said arrows were almost never used outside of volleys in military formations.
VOLLEYS NIGGA VOLLEYS
DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND IT
YOU SHOOT AND HOPE IT HITS SOMETHING CRITICAL
AND IT DOES, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY FUCKING ARROWS, ONE OF THEM IS BOUND TO HIT A WEAK SPOT

>>48659196
No anon, plate armor is inpenetrable by normal weapons and surrounded the full bodies of all knights throughout the entire Medieval Era.

>>48659173
The longsword couldn't even effectively break through maille, anyway. Why would an arrow have more success?

daily reminder that yew longbows were folded over one billion times and arrows fired from them could pierce stone walls

>>48659235
Bodkin arrows were specifically made to penetrate mail.

File: 1465684888275.jpg (288KB, 1280x1214px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1280x1214px

>>48659225
But the question is, does it protect against nuclear deep-strikes and mind-worms?

>>48659164
>don't forget vikings being epic warriors and samurai slicing tanks in half
This is what it sounds like to me everytime someone gushes about the monstrous muscular hulks that are the english archers and their masterful crafted bows, made out of the finest yew and folded ten thousand times and which could pierce ten knights at once. Such a magnificant weapon that was never overstimated by english historian.

>>48659173
>hundred years war
>the early 15th century during which armor consisting mostly of plates with mail voiding became the predominant form of protection for very wealthy men at arms

You can pick both if you want, actually, or just the first one. Unless you mean to imply that the only form of plate to ever exist was Renaissance Era fully articulated plate.

>>48659277
>t. French Knight

>>48659225
>Never wore plate armor.
>Never got hit in the chest or face with a mace while wearing plate armor and getting super bruised and concussed from the blow.

>>48656584
>you should shoot the armor directly into the armor plate, hoping the arrow would penetrate the armor
"You should shoot your bullets into the bulletproof kevlar vest, hoping the bullets would penetrate the vest".
This is literally what you just said, just in a different form.

>>48659250
And nobody had the idea to make swords that are pretty great at penetrating armor? Why would a long bar of metal be worse at this than a tiny piece of it?

>>48659280
Citation need, faggot.

Also if it's not fully articulated plate then you have POINTS NOT COVERED WHERE ARROWS CAN HIT AND INJURE YOU

How is this hard for armor autists to understand? Do they think all armor is made of adamantium and arrowheads are paper mache?

>>48656714
To be fair the crossbowmen didn't accomplish anything and were already running away when the knights ran over them
Thay deserved getting stomped more than getting paid

>>48656822
>Implying all bows used in war were like the biggest English longbows with 130+ lb draw weights
>Implying it's that hard for a hardy and a fit person who's spent their life doing manual labor to pull back a bow with 60-80 lbs

>>48656640
>Medieval Europe. Sure, bows were used, but where considered unhonorable peasant weapons by the French after they got repeatedly BTFO by English archers.

FTFY

>>48659295
A smaller point has less armor that it needs to push through, which makes it easier.

>>48659305
To be fair, the crossbowmen were supposed to have pavises to protect them, but they were deployed without them for... reasons. They didn't accomplish anything because the English longbowmen had longer range and were shooting them to death with impunity, which would not have happened if the crossbowmen had the shields they were supposed to have.

>>48659335
Anon, are you telling me that only arrow heads can have small points? Not swords? Ever looked at the points of rapiers, small swords and even fucking late medieval longswords?

>>48659250
No they weren't. There is some evidence to suggest that bodkins were bird hunting arrows, not even armor piercing ones. They find some bodkins that don't even have hardened tips and would just bend when they hit steel plate armor.

And a bodkin isn't gonna do shit to mail over padding.

Real armor piercing arrowheads were just an acute pointed square head.

>>48659303
Capwell, Tobias. Armour of the English Knight, 1400-1450. London: Thomas Del Mar, 2015.

If you weren't this much of an illiterate dickmuncher, you would have reed this book and discovered that your arguments about how early forms of plate armor were penetrated exactly in that method, you dumb fuck, making your larger argument correct but some minor details need correcting.

You faggot.

File: commando-bennett.jpg (15KB, 400x196px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 400x196px

>>48656911
I don't need no girl!
I don't need no sword!

IMMAKILLYOUNAOOOOOO!

>>48659382
>No they weren't. There is some evidence to suggest that bodkins were bird hunting arrows, not even armor piercing ones. They find some bodkins that don't even have hardened tips and would just bend when they hit steel plate armor.
>no citation again

>>48659385
I've read that and all it does is prove my points.

ITT everyone thinks that arrows could never penetrate knight armor and I guess all those knights at Crecy just got upset they were hit by ineffective arrows and killed themselves on their own accord.

>>48659437
ITT everyone thinks they are historians, or were at Crecy.

Kill yourself.

>>48659452
>made a valid point
>"le kill yourself"

Summer kiddies can't leave sooner.

>>48659437
>ITT everyone thinks that arrows could never penetrate knight armor
Because this is right.

>>48659467
Then how did they get defeated by archers? Because they did as a fact.

>>48659407
You didn't read the rest of the post, obviously.

>>48659478
The arrows didn't hit their armor, they hit their horses, which caused them to fall into the mud and drown.

>>48659478
>Then how did they get defeated by archers?
They got defeated by their own stupid strategies and of the complete english army, which doesn't consist only of 100% archers. Also those archers often got into melee.

Also, just for fun, the french won. So they didn't get defeated, just in some of those battles.

>>48659511
So all this argument over archers not being effective against knights is pointless bullshit, because they were clearly beaten by longbows and le armor meme means dogshit.

>>48659173
Considering Hundred Years War took place in 14th and 15th centuries yeah they had plate you fucking idiot when do you think it was used? In 17th century?

Let's post the most meme things about history

>katana
>longbow
>vikings
>Spartans
>muh le war is hell WWI
>le AK47 is reliable

>>48659572
>no mongols

>>48659332
As far as Wikipedia says, the way it worked was that no one had really used archers in large numbers up until the Battle of Agincourt. Until that point, battles had usually been decided by the knights. So when Henry V showed up with an army of almost entirely archers and was still outnumbered, the French were sure they would curbstomp the English.
Then they had to walk 300 yards of knee-deep mud under constant arrow-fire.
Regardless of how many got killed by the arrows, by the time they hit the English line they were so exhausted that they could barely fight.

>>48659572
Replace longbow with "platemail" and AK47 with "le M16 was supreme gun" you've got a solid list.

>>48659597
>shitposting this hard
And /tg/ tries to talk shit about /his/ not knowing about history. Literally everyone here bases their historic knowledge off of garbage media.

>>48659598
>before Agincourt
How about the motherfucking battle of Crecy for one.

>>48658834
>abs

A real man can kill a man with naught but his hate filled stare.

>>48659597
>you guys, Mongols prove that archer cavalry will beat any army, swear to god! They beat everybody in Europe, and camped outside the castles, and, and got bored and... and left.

>>48659601
But plate was effective in all of europe, while the longbow is an english historians meme.

>>48659598
It's less that arrows can penetrate plate, and more that the constant hail of arrows meant at least one had a good chance of hitting a weakpoint and getting in there.

With that said, a good deal of knights were ransomed, not killed. It suggests to me that they made it through the fighting pretty okay aside from being exhausted by the conditions, unless they were crushed by horses or killed in melee.

>>48659601
M16 WAS a superior gun.

>>48659572
WMDs

>>48659656
>the Mongols are a meme people because they didn't take over all of Europe
>let's just ignore the fact they took over almost all of Asia barring Japan and the Middle East, they're a meme people!

>>48656942
You aren't wrong. Strangling someone makes my penis hard.

>>48659686
asia is a meme region

>>48659686
>all of Asia barring Japan
And Vietnam. They had basically the same experience as the US.

>>48659712
Can't wait for summer to end.

File: 1382502481599.jpg (21KB, 218x265px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 218x265px

>>48656911
>>48659395
I fucking love you guys

I always like when people say that longbows can penetrate plate without issue.

Bro, even high-poundage longbows have trouble penetrating a thick gambeson, let alone proper plate armour with padding. The former would probably still lead to a broken rib, though.

The real point is that full plate armour wasn't common until late medieval -> renaissance. People love to get anachronistic because of fantasy RPGs, which are a terrible source for anything. I actually had to argue with someone the other day who still thought longswords were one-handed and two-handed swords were an entirely different class of sword called 'bastard swords'. Or someone arguing that mages couldn't wear armour and cast spells because "it would be too difficult to move" because "I wore (non-custom, badly-made) plate to a LARP once".

Can we get back on topic of fantasy warriors being tards instead of turning it into another /his/ thread where people who think Braveheart is an accurate representation of William Wallace post their verbal vomit about history?

>>48659833
But everyone knows the scots could swing their swords straight through armour, anon!

>>48659833
>implying braveheart isn't perfectly accurate to life
this thread's got some dumb motherfuckers in it, but you take the cake

>>48659308
>implying anyone was hardy at this point
Diet and disease my friend

>>48659864
No the armor was completely invincible against all weapons. The movie is historically inaccurate because the Scots also used invincible plate armor but they didn't show it.

INVINCIBLE PLATE ARMOR IN EUROPE DATES BACK TO THE 700'S, FOLDED OVER ONE MILLION TIMES FOR THE PALADINS OF CHARLEMAGNE

ADAMANTINE ARROWS IN ENGLAND DATE BACK TO THE 600'S, AND FLY FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF SOUND CAPABLE OF KILLING ENTIRE BLOCKS OF CAVALRY IN A SINGLE VOLLEY

>>48659932
>CAPABLE OF KILLING ENTIRE BLOCKS OF CAVALRY IN A SINGLE VOLLEY
That is accurate though.

Just to clear something out longbows not penetrating armor does not mean anyone claims plate was indestructible as a matter of fact warhammers, maces, and I think also halberds but not sure as well as bills (altough that was mostly to dismount the rider rather than to deal with armor itself) were effective weapons which is common knowledge.

You stupid fucking piece of shit britbong faggots.

>>48659932
>being so unoriginal he has to rip-off someone's copypasta
Armor autists are so silly.

Plate isn't invincible, but it's not easily beaten by a common war tactic either. It's why they trusted and wore it. People always talk about French getting rekt in specific battles but always fail to mention that they WON the 100 years war.

>>48659956
>all weapons could penetrate armor EXCEPT ARROWS, THEY WERE COMPLETELY USELESS, IGNORING THE FACT EVERY ARMY HAD ARCHERS, AND THE FACT THEY DESIGNED MULTIPLE TYPES OF ARROWHEADS SPECIFICALLY TO GET THROUGH ARMOR

>>48659956
No, no, leave them to their narrative. If their ultraweapon longbows couldn't (reliably) do it then clearly nothing else could either!

>>48660002
Longbows were stronger than most melee weapons, dumb euro.

>>48659988
Swords are shit at doing it too, dude. That's why they had fight treatises talking about aiming for the armourless weakspots in melee fighting and turning your sword into a blunt weapon in a pinch. Or is that fact inconvenient for you, too?

File: Why.jpg (21KB, 288x499px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 288x499px

>bows are useless
>it can't penetrate mail
>everyone still used those ineffective weapons
Why? Where they just stupid?

>>48660023
>That's why they had fight treatises talking about aiming for the armourless weakspots
And yet, according to europoors in this thread, longbows are incapable of doing this. I guess those knights at Crecy were just meme'd to death, amirite?

>>48660045
Weird, I remember reading a post in this thread that specifically mentioned a hail of arrow fire making hitting weakspots more likely.

>>48660036
It's because they forgot that they designed multiple types of arrowheads for penetrating mail.

>>48660036
volume of fire and the fact that everyone in the opposing army wasn't wearing the best armor for the time period

>>48660061
Not to mention that arms and armour was, you know, an arms race. As the weapons improved in their ability to kill unarmoured and light-armoured people, the armour improved. As the armour improved, they needed better weapons and variants of those weapons. Bows gave way to crossbows gave way to cannons and matchlock pistols/rifles until eventually it just wasn't worth being fully armoured any more and we stuck to what was essentially a flak jacket.

>>48659988
Archers were meant to wear the enemy down you nigger not outright kill him. If arrows could penetrate armor why the fuck would anyone wear it and why the fuck Persians had so much trouble with armored hoplites when their archery heavy armies stomped everyone else?

>>48658834
I could detonate your skull with but one well-timed squat-thrust!

>>48660279
Hoplites also had giant shields you autist, which knights don't have.

>>48660291
And why do you think knighs ditched shields you fucking retard? It's because armor was developed enough to make shields obsolete there is a reason why from 14th century onwards people switched to two handed polearms and had heavily armored infantry.

>>48660313
You can't ride a horse while carrying a hoplite shield you autistic euro.

>>48660323
Heavily armoured infantry isn't heavily armoured cavalry, you cool dude.

>>48660323
Then why the fuck did infantry ditch shields retarded piece of americunt shit imbecile?

>>48660058
Yea, but most people in this thread are ignoring those posts and saying "NUH UH! Plate gives, like, a +8 AC bonus! Like, there was no such things as Gaps back then! Those was invented in, like, 1969! Like DUH!"

Case in point >>48660313

>>48660356
They didn't moron.

>>48660358
>still no explanation why people abandoned shields if armor was so shit armor any arrow could penetrate it

>>48660392
Shields were better are protecting but more cumbersome.

Truth is bows were the ultimate weapon and armor was absolutely useless just look at Mongols surely they never wore any armor or employed any other unit than horse archers and look how well they did! Armor was a literal meme ancient people invented to prank future generations I played Dark Souls which is very realistic and armor does fuck all in it.

>>48660407
>shield
>more cumbersome than plate armour

wat

>>48660463
This anon is spot-on.

>>48660389>>48660407

Post some post 14th century units that employed shields then.

english longbows cant pierce french armor

>>48660475
Plate armor is easy to move around in you autist. A shield takes up an entire hand and puts all the weight on it.

Why are you dumb fucks so butthurt about bows? They are obsolete shit anyway we use guns now what's the point of fanboying over something that is now used only for sport? Just deal with the fact it couldn't fucking pierce plate but warhammers could.

>>48660569
Why are you dumb fucks so butthurt about plate armor? They are obsolete shit anyway we use kevlar now what's the point of fanboying over something that is now used only for LARPing? Just deal with the fact it could be fucking pierced by longbows but not by swords.

>>48660603
I don't give a flying fuck about plate armor british nigger loving faggot.

>>48660667
I don't give a flying fuck about longbows euro cuck loving faggot.

>>48660491
oh right plate is easier to move around in? thats why thieves/rogues/cutpurses wear full plate armour and dont ever have shields xD

>>48656748
>Archers
>Weak
This meme needs to die.

>>48660735
>xD
Back to le-eddit.

>>48660786
summer please go

WOW LONGBOWS LMAO

TOO BAD BRITS FUCKING LOST THE WAR

>>48660830
what war lol

File: Pavise.jpg (22KB, 225x306px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 225x306px

>>48660478
I agree with you about Knights who had access to full plate, but those that didn't would still use shields.

For example, pic related is a Pavise, used by crossbowmen as portable cover.
Point I'm making is that shields were used for a while, just in different forms

>>48660843
Hundred years war.

>>48660855
Yes halberdiers surely used shields with their third arm.

>>48659164
what plate? heat-treated high-carbon stee`l?

>>48660805
>le-edditor calling other summerfags
>unironically posts "xD"
Please get cancer.

>>48658971
>Getting REKT by Admiral Yi.
They won every land battle they tried from what I understand.
Really the Samurai got owned on the water. This could really be seen as a case of honorabu warriors losing to new tactics.

>I also enjoy youtube.

>>48660977
>discovering 4chan this summer
xD

>>48660884
Were there not cases of Pikemen who wore bucklers? Small enough to not get in the way, but helpful in a melee? I may be entirely wrong though

And to be fair, said anon was asking for examples of armed forces using shields, which Pavise Crossbowmen fall under

>>48659727
>Idiots only post for a quarter of the year

If only.

>>48661065
you're meant to bully them with autism until they dont want to be here anymore but no one does that anymore because /tg/ is full of normie fucks who basically sympathise with summerfaggotry

File: 0165449.jpg (2MB, 2000x1481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1481px

>>48656584
Spartans. A warrior culture so rigid they were their own demise.

They were raging when one of their armies was killed by peltasts.

I believe they also hated the catapult, for it was first created to fight back ranged troops.

That didn't prevent them from hiring mercenary cretan archers sometimes. Or making some helots and periokoi fight as ranged and cavalry.

>>48661060
And crossbowmen are not goddamn fucking infantry you cocksucker.

>>48656640
You kinda have to know the French knights were brave to point of suicide to know why this is hilarious.

File: ERIK_THOR_SANDBERG_05.jpg (458KB, 1181x1574px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1181x1574px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxHYQW2Nio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3OIjpLSaYQ&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w&index=46

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ&index=49&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_K-P0AwfI&index=20&list=PLkMIaCcWSxvxhsuJvH70MgTlIV-gUAH2w

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/215909.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/248242.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/439563.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/286199.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/133036.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/140100.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141128.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/145549.html

http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/181203.html

File: 1399155309236.jpg (2MB, 3655x3050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3655x3050px

>>48656640
>Cowards won't even let me get in range to hit them

top lol get good

>>48660358
The shit flinging began when someone implied the frenchies armor was penetrated

>>48656584
According to the French, the only reason the English archers cut them down so handily was because the English were all despicable murderers and thus were just naturally better at killing than the french.

>>48662786
No, the shit-flinging back when >>48658970
claimed that arrows were too shit to penetrate linen and that "many civilizations" thought they were stupid weapons.

>>48663307
Suddenly I'm thinking of Arthurian legends & how the French hated the English's favorite Gawain.

>>48656724
>knight = noble
knight = gentry. nobility is uppermost tier of the gentry.

Warrior classes are created by the upper upper ruling class and the priestly class.

The warrior class composes the mid and lower strata of the ruling class and the upper crust of the working class.

Their explicit purpose is to fight, die and conquor in the name of the Church and the Crown. Whatever weapons they use are moot.

>>48659717

and thailand.

>>48659686

They took over the flat parts and left nothing of value behind when they left.

most of them converted the instant they ran into anything even remotely resembling religion and civilization.

on arrows versus plate armor, skip to 5:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY

>>48663307

I mean, if the saying of obligatory arrow training, along with the natural rigors of rural life back then don't add up to a guy who is fit and training, and thus better for killing, that could be true.

But knights are literally guys who fight and kill for a lord and get land for it. Unless France was full of decadent knights who pursued their own wealth over their own fitness, the problem then lies in simply that archers, unarmored horses, and mud makes a bad combo.

>>48661016
>Really the Samurai got owned on the water. This could really be seen as a case of honorabu warriors losing to new tactics.
Nah, they just had shitty ship design.

>>48656584
ancient hawaiian culture only used the bow for hunting but if you killed anyone with a bow you yourself would be would be killed also or banished cant remember, all about that honour and gods

>>48656640
Not true. It's just that when you're fighting with a polearm you don't really have time to muck about with a bow.

File: 1465557805899.png (1MB, 800x1090px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1090px

>>48659332
>The longbow was decisive in Agincourt
>Patay never happened
Pick 0

>>48656584
Why is there more and more shitposting on /tg/ lately? And why doesn't /tg/ ever recognize it?

>>48656584
The Trojan War epic has archery as cowardly.

>>48656584
It's considered highly probable by historians that William Wallace was a trained archer first and foremost and that guy was scary.

In most ancient amd medieval cultures archery borders on cowardice when the archer chooses to avoid melee fighting and run away or keep distance when the enemy closed distance. If they took out their side weapon and reunited with the main force nobody would call them cowards

>>48659667
No, it's mostly that the archers completely murderfucked the horses and that the frech army was aristocracy who played at war for sport and the English army was increasingly made up of proffessional soldiers who knew nobody would ever ransom them so it was just do or die.

The French got completely fucked by the same recipe of archers and dismounted men at arms at Poitiers, at Crecy and at Agincourt. They just never fucking learned.

On the Mainland you see the exact same thing with the Hapsburgs and the Swiss confederacy, but even earlier. An entire generation of nobility hacked to pieces by burly germanic peasants with halberds and longspears, and they still kept trying.

What people have to realize is that knights were never really amazing, it's just that for the majority of history they fought people with shit organization, armour and weapons, and the moment that stopped, the knights got killed left and right.

If you're some Norman on a horse with chainmail head to toe, yeah, you're going to kill infinity fyrdmen or whatever trying to swipe at you with axes and garden hoes, but when the guy on the ground gets actually useful weapons and training, you are just fucked.

>>48668862
>Wallace
>scary

>>48668893
>buttmad englishman

If you saw a 7 ft tall guy with human skin hanging from his waist running at you with a sword appropriate for his size you'd be scared too

File: 1410987748362.jpg (69KB, 553x599px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 553x599px

>>48668893
>He got tortured, castrated and killed fighting for Scotland's freedom
>His "heirs" voluntarily gave away their freedom to England, and now complain about England choosing to go against their interests

>>48668884
>What people have to realize is that knights were never really amazing, it's just that for the majority of history they fought people with shit organization, armour and weapons, and the moment that stopped, the knights got killed left and right.
Yeah, they were never really amazing. They were just the guys with the best equipment and training around. Bruh, check what you're saying. You're only explaining why after a while, knights stopped being the only guys who are amazing (hence why Europe stepped away from knight levies and to professional men at arms once they coudl afford it).

>>48668962
>They were just the guys with the best equipment and training around. Bruh, check what you're saying.

Check yourself.

The fact that knights become largely irrelevant the moment they are up against people with decent training and gear that doesn't suck, but that only cost a fraction of what a knight cost to outfit is a pretty strong argument that Knights were a kind of shit use of resources.

Which is why the aristocracy was so zealous about oppressing their peasants.

I'm not saying that knights were never the best around. They were for a long time. I'm saying that them being the best around relied a LOT on everyone else being awful, rather than 1 rich bastard on a horse being the pinnacle of warfare.

Which is why the nation that started to rely on proffessional soldiers and letting the lower classes have weapons absolutely pissed on the French so many times.

>>48669083
Well, yeah. It was an inefficient use of resources the moment the economy radically changed about 1000 years after knights were first organized (or even later, if you consider Roman equites the precursor to knights). That system worked for a thousand years because it was the best way to organize well-trained and well equiped curbstompers in an era of decentralized rule, vassal-liege conflicts and peasants that were too poor to do anything but work the land. What was instrumental in the rise of men-at-arms who replaced knights was massive political and social change, including the rise of cities (which created members of the Third Estate who were the equivalent of lower nobility in wealth and desired to expand their wealth and glory through warfare), centralization (which allowed kings to get the maximum out of the resources of their kingdoms with minimal vassal interference) and inventions (metallurgy improved, and later gunpowder became a thing).

Knights were pretty damned awesome for their time. The problem is that later on you got guys who were knights in all but title, making the knights with the actual titles pretty useless. Those guys then became overglorified administrators, but the new bourgeois wasn't too happy about that either. Then the French Revolution happened, and the only knights that remained were the knights of the Legion d'Honneur.

You need to judge everything within the context of their time. And during the early/high middle ages, knights were as awesome as it got.

>>48668884
>They just never fucking learned.

Kek, I recall reading in a book about medieval warfare that a french king then introduced bow training to peasants, copying the brits, and they prove themselves as effective as their english counterparts.

Then french nobles realized that if their peasants could win battles against the english, they would probably easily beat them if they started a revolt, and so they banished bow training.

>>48656584
The French.

>>48656640
English archers at least weren't the kind of peasants/serfs people think of, but freemen with their own land.

>>48659437
You know what's dumb? Using "knight armor" as a generalization when that could range from chainmail with maybe some plate to gothic full-plate from the 15-16th century.

>>48656584
A client Greeks.
But they were full on gay anyway.

>>48668768
Summer is real.

>>48664343
The French made shitty Mary Sue additions, they don't get to speak on what knights are terrible.

>>48659292
But what if we're shooting SLAP into grade one kevlar? That's still a bullet into bullet proof armor.
Or full auto into a trauma plate? eventually you get through. And helmets have eye holes, joints aren't plated all the way through, and getting hit with fifteen arrows from a longbow might not kill you, but it's not gonna feel god either.

>>48661587
Why... Hello there lil' fetish. I haven't seen you around here before. My what an extraordinary fetish you are. I didn't know I had you even.

>>48659889
This is true. The only way people died was from falling in mud and drowning