Thread 64496602

wunderwaffe

>get rolled by knights
>lose the war

>>64496638
>knights
They got rolled by guns, acktchully. By the end of the hundred years war France had started using early firearms and cannons while the English still mostly used bows.

>>64496648
>>64496602 (OP)
>wunderwa....ACK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

>>64496602 (OP)
>wunderwaffe
>doesn't shoot waffles
I always wondered why this was the case?

>>64496757
Psychological warfare. If the enemy thinks they're getting waffles, they'll stand around in the open waiting for them, only to receive arrows instead.

>>64496602 (OP)
That's not how you write "overrated trash"

>>64496821
>waffle baiting
Downright perfidious

>>64496638
lol

>>64496936
Came here to post this. Until the advent of massed firearms the Bill was the true wonder-weapon of Europe.

>>64496648
>>64496722
It's infuriating how a lot of people's understanding of the Hundred Years War is "the english won every battle and one day the French somehow won the war", when they don't outright think the english won it
The evolution of the French army during this war is a fascinating subject, and Patay, Formigny and Castillon deserve as much of a spotlight as Crécy and Agincourt
>t. a frustrated Froggy

>>64497517
I just like the wholesale deletion of entire towns and villages, and the summary disembowlment of wounded soldiers by both sides.

Ultimately the longbow is cooler than horse riders

>>64497517
Well, give us the tl:dr French version.

>>64496846
We now know where the leaf gets it from!

>>64497971
>english kings believe the French crown belongs to them for a bunch of reasons I'm too lazy to list here
>French kings disagree
>War declared
>the english invade France from their island and their continental holdings (Calais, Guyenne)
>Longbowmen and the tactical genius of english king Edward III crush elite French knights
a bunch of times
>French nobility is completely discredited and the country descends into civil war. Much of France is controlled by the english
>Charles V, nicknamed "the Wise", becomes king of France and begins a patient reconquest of the territory with the help of a cunning and competent commander, Bertrand Du Guesclin
>The French avoid pitched battles and gradually recapture several strongholds from the english
>Charles VI "the mad" becomes king of France and fucks everything up, because he's mad
>The english win at Agincourt and the Armagnacs and Bourguignons, two of the most powerful French noble families, start to kill each others, plunging the country into a civil war
>The Bourguignons ally with the english, taking with them a third of France

>>64497971
>english kings believe the French crown belongs to them for a bunch of reasons I'm too lazy to list here
>French kings disagree
>War declared
>the english invade France from their island and their continental holdings (Calais, Guyenne)
>Longbowmen and the tactical genius of english king Edward III crush elite French knights a bunch of times
>French nobility is completely discredited and the country descends into civil war. Much of France is controlled by the english
>Charles V, nicknamed "the Wise", becomes king of France and begins a patient reconquest of the territory with the help of a cunning and competent commander, Bertrand Du Guesclin
>The French avoid pitched battles and gradually recapture several strongholds from the english
>Charles VI "the mad" becomes king of France and fucks everything up, because he's mad
>The english win at Agincourt and the Armagnacs and Bourguignons, two of the most powerful French noble families, start to kill each others, plunging the country into a civil war
>The Bourguignons ally with the english, taking with them a third of France

>>64498127
>Charles the VII, son of the mad king, desperately tries to hold together what's left of his kingdom after his father's death
>A teenage girl appears out of nowhere and tells him she's sent by God to kick the english out
>She may be a lunatic but she's charismatic as fuck
>"Ok let's give it a try I have nothing else to lose anyway"
>Gives the teenage girl an army, she actually pulls it off and kicks the english out of the strategic Loire Valley after a few battles
>The teenage girl escorts Charles to the city of Reims where he's crowned king of France. Legitimacy and moral is through the roof
>Teenage girl is captured and burned to the stake, but the French have a new momentum
>Charles negotiates with the Bourguignons and brings them back to the fold
>Franco-english proxy war in Spain ends with French victory, Spanish ships fuck with the english in the Atlantic
>Neutral Brittany joins the French and fuck with the english in The Channel
>Charles creates a professional army equipped with tons of artillery. He relies on the emerging French national identity to drive the English out of the north of the country
>Retakes Guyenne in Southwestern France by raping longbowmen with cannons
>The english only keep the city of Calais on the continent. They go back to their island and start killing each others
>Charles VII becomes "the victorious". The english kings eventually abandon their claims on the french throne

>>64496842
Very nuanced anon, if something is overrated surely being a total contrarian and assuming it is trash must be the correct outlook

>>64497235
neither of those images depict billhooks. those are voulges

>>64498133
>>64498127
I think you're overstating Jean a bit there anon
Also it's not that complex to state why Edward struck his claim out, at least not in terms of legality
>French King dies without sons
>his eldesr sisters son is Edward III, making him the closest male claimant
>the French, obviously not wanting this basically say women can't inherit, pick a cousin and then try to justify it by attaching it to a law from near a millenia ago that didn't actually say what they say it did

>>64498164
>I think you're overstating Jean a bit there anon
She wasn't a military genius, but her incredible charisma did wonders for French morale in a very difficult time, and helped kickstart a chain of events that would eventually lead to the final French victory in the war

>>64498133
Kind of anticlimactic desu. And then nothing happens until the French Revolution and Napoleon?

>>64498201
>Two powerful arch rivals fighting in brutal battles to decide the fate of an entire country
>New exciting and terrifying military technology
>Murder, treason and political scheming that makes GoT look like a child's play
>A kingdom on the brink of defeat against a seemingly unstoppable foe
>Providential savior turns the tide through charisma alone
>The war ends with a last epic confrontation pitting two notions of warfare against each other
You must have a weird definition of anticlimatic

>>64498201
>nothing happens until the French Revolution and Napoleon?
Italian Wars, Wars of Religion, Wars of Louis XIV, Seven Years War, American War of Independence

>>64498127
>>64498133
Just imagine how fucked France would have been if Edward hadn't shit himself to death?

>>64498247
Well, mainland history is kind of like that. Like you're always going to expect China to rule China in the end, even if the Japanese or Mongols had a good run.

>>64498201
(not the other anon)
The war ends around 1453 (conveniently almost co-inciding with the fall of Byzantium, so a useful demarcation of the true end of the Middle Ages).

Both England and France spend the next 300 years mostly consolidating power by taking over smaller proto-nations. England taking Scotland and Ireland, culminating in Great Britain, and France taking over around a dozen smaller quasi-independent duchies, counties, and whatnot - the most important ones being Bourgundy and Brittany. Finally culminating in ... well, France.

As a result of the friction which inevitably comes with centralization of power, at some point Britain decides to chop its king's head off around 1649 and become a republic for a bit. France eventually reaches a similar boiling point and does the same 140 years later with their own king.

There's some minor unimportant stuff going on in the meanwhile with trade, religion, and stuff like that, but it's just theming. Ultimately it's a classical "deuteragonist empires" story that continues until roughly the end of the 19th century, after which it all goes to shit for pretty much everyone.

>>64498279
>at some point Britain decides to chop its king's head off around 1649 and become a republic for a bit
>France eventually reaches a similar boiling point and does the same 140 years later
Except we were much more intense, and we never got out of that republican phase
Also the english ended with Cromwell, while we had Napoleon

I like the aenglish more they have cool things like dreadnoughts while the french merely have gay things like pederast poets and losing wars to unified g*rmans 66% of the time

>>64498136
Or maybe I'm calling it overrated because they are quite bad but the brits love to glaze them.

>>64496936
What happened at Patay?

>>64498279
Any other big European players? I know the Spanish kind of came out of nowhere with the reconquista, tercios, and new world.

>>64496638
>>64496648
>>64496842
>>64500270
God I love when uneducated retards spew nonsense on the internet

>>64503601
See >>64500598
It’s funny you call me uneducated but don’t even know history or what happened to England and their longbows.

>>64496602 (OP)
>relevant in one war
>loses

>>64496602 (OP)
Forsooth, this "Weapon for the Next Generation" is like unto a disaster for us. Lo', who needth a bow with a 100 pound draw? Do not our current bows already penetrateth a French cuirass? Nay, I tell the tis rank folly. And if the armorers were to adopt a new bow, should it not be a crossbow, as all other countries are already using, which gets more pull out of a smaller weapon? Verily, with that much pull the bow strings shall snap within nigh four score loose. And for what use is this? We know in truth that heavy horse is almost never engaged beyond 150 yards.

Most devious of all, York has once again been selected to make the bow! Verily, I tell thee the Hebrews are behind this.

>>64503601
You know that retardation of yours would work a lot better outside of /k/ where we regularly end up with threads about war bows and early guns including contemporary accounts that accredit the latter with way better performance.

>>64498183
By all accounts Jeanne had a knack for arty, though to be fair it's pretty easy to be a trailblazer in an entirely new field.

>>64505847
Yea, I heare telle of Swiss daggers what falle from sheathe and doth impale the shanks of the one using it. But lo, our wyse and reasoned princes do accept these daggers for the campaign!

>ywn cuddle with Clotilde d'Arc in her full plate
Man, just end me.

>>64505985
>Jeanne d'Arc
>Molly Pitcher
>Agustina de Aragón
Why does arty attract tomboys?

>>64506028
bitches love cannons

>>64506028
Do you think they ever sat on the cannon while it fired?

>>64498262
Are you trying to say that every bit of Eurasian history has been boring?

>>64496602 (OP)
loserwaffe more like

>>64505930
>contemporary accounts that accredit the latter with way better performance
Yeah, like the Battle of Agincourt where you can count on the fingers of 1 hand the number of English killed by guns

You dumbfucks just can't accept that for the first 3/4ths of the 100YW, the longbow was unquestionably dominant

>>64498133
>France won the hundred years war
>The crown negotiated the burgundians back into *their* fold
Lol, lmao even. Burgundy controlled more of France than the French or the English did. They also captured and made sure Joan was executed for heresy/apostasy. When the duke switched to backing "France" it was his France, the crown was very much the Jr partner in their power play for taking continental holdings from the English. It was ~50 years until the French monarchy managed to have enough power in their own country to defeat the claimants to burgundy in the burgundians wars of succession to claim the title for the crown after their last direct male heir/the most powerful man in France died.

"And then they just switched sides for no identifiable reason whatsoever, France number 1 don't think about it" is the later monarchy and it's finger on the scale of history not wanting to admit to something so embarrassing.

>>64500270
You literally called it trash, and now bad
The longbow by all accounts was a good weapon, its got a good draw strength, so why do you think it is trash? I'm not disputing that it's overrated by retards who don't know fuck all, what was good about it was the man using it and the structures in place about them to make them trained, well equipped and almost semi professional in nature
But there's also utter morons like yourself who seem to think it's trash because you simply must be contrarian, dickweed

>>64503648
The longbow was about for a good while before HYW anon, just because you don't know it doesn't make it's true

>>64498127
>>64498133
Okay, so TLDR, the english won every battle and one day the French somehow won the war
Good to know

>>64509781
He left out
>Henry the V died and King of England became an 8 month old during all these "achievements" of France
>The whole Joan of Arc thing wasn't even the major period of territorial upset, the burgundians made sure of that, and the not yet coronated Henry VI was like 11
>Burgundy broke the treaty of amiens in 1435 when Henry VI was 14 and proceeded to become France with Charles VII as cuck figurehead as they chipped English continental holdings down to Calais because Henry was a child then weak post regency king (which eventually kicked off the war of the roses)
>Charles the good (burgundy) had 1 son who died against the Swiss Confederacy in 1477
>French monarchy proceeds to try and marriage pact away burgundians power, but cucked again start 15 year war dragging in the HRE all not fully resolved until 1493
>Ultimately lost burgundy to the Habsburgs somehow and it became part of the HRE

Then
>Italian wars.jpg

>>64509571
Its draw strength is comparable to other war bows of the time and it's not likel crossbows didn't compete with them for the same role.
Ultimately they both are capped by human muscle power and the durability of th available materials. The force which they can produce could not compete with the power of black powder.

The structured only say so much about the weapon, the french had similar systems, with their franc-archers possibly being closer to professional troops.
Italian crossbow men had a stellar reputation as professional/battle hardened troops.
None of these speak for the merits of the weapon itself.

>>64509577
The longbow is literally the oldest and simplest type of bow. Yes, I am well aware it is many thousands of years older than the hundred years war. However, it is culturally relevant because of its place in one war, that it lost. The entire reason people think about the longbow is because British people in the 1800s hyped it up because of "muh Agincourt"

>>64510363
The power of the longbowmen wasn't the bow itself but the fact that English longbowmen essentially drilled their entire lives to use it so you had a relatively large pool of well trained and drilled archers to draw from at any point which is about as close as you'll get to a professional standing army for the period. The average Englishman was also physically deformed due to the constant practice they went through.

>>64510464
>The average Englishman was also physically deformed
They still are, you ever seen a brit?

>>64510464
Which didn't differ that much from the rest.
The potential volume was higher but its bot like the peasantry always took it very serious, often enough treating it more like a fun outing than war training. Doesn't help that shooting bows by itself doesn't teach you anything about soldiering nor does it have the impact, as a weapon, shift the tide on it's own.

If the bow were able to have more of an impact on the battlefield the large mount of "trained" commoners would be a big deal. Similarly if it would have imparted more relevant skills and experiences..
Although even if the latter were the case it still wouldn't be an argument in favor of the longbow because training them to shoot any other weapon would have had a similar effect then.

And despite my phrasing I'm not saying that the longbow didn't have any place on the battlefield but it was a supportive tool like any other bow and not the thing of myths that english pride likes to paint it as.

>>64498183
>She wasn't a military genius

Except for over-extending she she should not have done so (Common mistake) , she was honestly very good , especially considering she had no formal training in tactics .She knew how to press an advantage , was willing to compromise with the more expirienced commanders who were sometimes detractors and constantly led from the front and braving Life threatening injuries despite having little combat training and being a big target .

Besides the apparition of Saints , she led from the front and led generally well .And she fought the damned Anglos .

>>64500270
They glaze their own pathetic history all the time .Their propaganda is overwhelming , like how they jack themselves off with "defeating" the "Invincible Armada" (They invented that term) despite weather conditions and storms being the thing that saved their asses from being civilized and the following year their own even larger armada got beaten by actual military response and the first defense being from Militias .Or how their precious Francis Drake not only did not go through the passage they call "Drake's" (It was discovered by Francisco de Hoces , which is why it bears his name) but he got his ass handed to him constantly .

The way they write history , you would believe they won at least a single war against Spain ... technically they did not .

>>64506028
Artillery attracts everyone , it is sexy as fuck .

>>64510668
English mercenaries, mainly bowmen, were a common sight in most European wars of the 14th and 15th century. John hawkwood is just the most famous of them for dabbing on the condottieri and being slightly less traitorous than average for a mercenary captain. Ironically your view of history is anglocentric to only know about the mercenaries England fought against. And in Britain the English style of fighting of bowmen and dismounted foot knights led to the conquest of ireland and scotland and wales. Plus all the skirmishes related to such. England herself used bowmen through to the 17th century alongside firearms and exhausted almost every source of straight trunk shaft yew on the continent.

>>64498279
the most important outcome was that it ended bongland's ambitions for a land empire and put them on the path of scheming and backstabbing to make sure no one else could have one either.

>>64511331
>English mercenaries, mainly bowmen, were a common sight in most European wars
literally nothing special, Hungarians and Balkanniggers were the same.
>England herself used bowmen through to the 17th century alongside firearms
and got relentlessly mocked for it, even by the brits themselves.

oh look it's the same shit skinned latam subhuman that makes this thread on every board to jerk off to his reddit-tier longbow obsession.

>>64511371
You seem to be seething quite a lot about the eternal anglo. The Scottish guard and burgundian ordinances are obviously inspired by/directly recruited from Britain in period. Archers armed as infantry worked well through to the close of the high middle ages.

>>64511401
>The Scottish guard and burgundian ordinances are obviously inspired by/directly recruited from Britain in period.
literal headcannon from a subhuman shitskin larping as a brit

>>64511409
>The Scottish guard made of armored archers wasn't Scottish armored archers
>Charles the bold's campaignies d'ordonnance specifying a lance as 1 man at arms, a light cavalrymen, an armed squire, and 3 mounted archers just thought it'd be neat to be a 50% archer force for no reason in particular
...are you actually retarded?

>>64511436
>mounted archers
so very british.

post skin with a time stamp, macaco.

>>64511467
>T...t...the Duke of burgundy was a le larping shitskin!
This is one of the few parts of frog history that isn't extremely embarrassing.

>>64511489
you're a larping shitskin, macaco. post hand with a time stamp instead of deflecting like the pathetic subhuman pice of filth you are.

>>64511489
NTA but spending hours shilling for a topic that's as far from your lineage as it can be won't turn you into the Duke of Burgundy, an Englishman or even a white person.

This thread is the unironic virtual cargo cult of the longbow.

>>64511496
>t. least most whitest algerian Parisian

So why do you think France so gay and englishpilled on the longbow during their modernization and continental ascendancy? You know, until getting into several massive quagmire wars with the HRE over Italy and losing all of them.

>>64511521
stop projecting, deflecting and coping and post your shit skinned hand, macaco. the most worthless algerian slave is still whiter and more intelligent than your entire latinx cesspool that you call a country.

>>64511529
>Admits he's (((the new French)))
spending hours shilling for a topic that's as far from your lineage as it can be won't turn you into Charles the Victorious, a Frenchman, or even a white person

>>64511538
oh look, the macaco tries to project now. post hand, brownoid.

>>64511542
>no you sar are the brown one!
You should learn at least a layman's level of French medieval history to be this mad on the internet about it. You'll really not like the Italian wars, the we're so back (it's so over) of French prestige.

>>64511568
i don't see a timestamp, macaco. where is it? btw the seething at french won't distract anyone from your pathetic shill behavior.

>>64511581
Anon I literally strung my longbow because it's funny. Now besides >(you) posting hand my algerian friend do you even have anything to attempt to deboonk... the text of the compagnie d'ordonnance on "the first standing army of late medieval and early modern France" being half archers from 1439 onward. Or are you just going to seethe about fantasy mexican agincourtaboos and your shared ignorance of European military history?

>>64511590
if you didn't steal the image from some random forum you'd be able to post a timestamp to prove that you're not the same mexican nigger that always spams these threads trying to larp as a brit to fruitlessly prove that he's not a subhuman piece of mystery meat without culture or history.

still not french btw, don't even speak a word of french either.

>The francs-archers ("free archers") militia were the first attempt at the formation of regular infantry in France. They were created by the ordonnance of Montil-lès-Tours on 28 April 1448, which prescribed that in each parish an archer should be chosen from among the most apt in the use of arms; who was to be exempt from the taille and certain obligations, to practise shooting with the bow on Sundays and feast-days, and to hold himself ready to march fully equipped at the first signal.
>The 1448 ordonnance specified the equipment of the archer as a sallet helmet, dagger, sword, a bow, a sheaf of arrows, a jerkin and a coat of mail.
>The Francs-archers' deficient combat performance, indiscipline and unreliability led Louis XI in 1480 to train a professional army under Marshal Philippe de Crèvecœur d'Esquerdes and abolish the militia a year later, ordering their equipment to be put in store in the parishes. The cost of this permanent force was too great for the kingdom's finances, with the standing army being disbanded in 1483–1484 after Louis XI's death. In 1485 the franc-archer system was re-established
>They were levied for the last time after the French defeat at Pavia

What did France mean by this seething brownoidxisters?

>>64511600
>adopt bows
>lose wars
the obsessive latinx mind is afraid and baffled by this conculsion.

>>64511605
>Lost said wars to the HRE and England
Workonmymachine :^)

>>64511609
>and England
wow didn't know they lost the 100 years war, must be my french education or something

so it still 100% accurate: adopt bows - lose wars.

>>64511610
>Be French
>Lose wars like it lost Burgundy

so anyway, regardless of the pathetic irrelevancy of the worthless topic of longbows, surely there's been enough time to take another photo you supposedly just nocked with your hands, this time with a timestamp? surely.

>>64511614
>be french
>win against england despite losing everywhere else
those english inflated meme bows must've really sucked, huh. no wonder it took 500 years for the meme to pop up about them.

Just a reminder that the English myth of the longbow isn't really about the longbow itself, it's about their proto-republican society being superior to Catholic feudalism. Them being the eventual losers matters little, as it does in any propaganda (and yes, all you've ever read about the longbow has been propaganda). During the actual war the official history was naturally centered on the nobility, the yeoman narrative was exaggerated after the Reformation primarily through the work of William Shakespeare.

>>64500598
>English attempt to set up ambush for French
>French mounted vanguard come across longbowmen while setting up ambush, they're slaughtered
>French find English still strung along road, not yet in battles
>Attack, English calvary fuck off and retreat
>Longbowmen attempt to retreat while being attacked en masse by French cavlary
>Inevitable slaughter of english follows
Luck, really. French moved quicker than anticipated, scouts happened to come across English after some bowmen went hunting.

>>64511568
>oak
>dacron

ngmi

>>64511615
Post hand buddy. Yours can also be weapons related

>>64511323
>you would believe they won at least a single war against Spain ... technically they did not
Wow I can see why dagoes are assmad about Gibraltar then, turns out they just kind of lost it down the back of the sofa for no good reason. Embarrassing.

>>64511622
>it's about their proto-republican society being superior to Catholic feudalism
idk about feudalism but i'd take their republicanism over continental absolutism any day imo

>>64511622
>literally ordered by the king to practice with bows
>proto-republican

>>64511625
>Ash
>Very much not dacron
Yew is expensive

>>64511627
Ok. Will you kill yourself and make the world less polluted with autistic shitskin subhumans now? Unfortunately not, you'll just evade, seethe and shill your meme obsessively for another 50 threads with hundreds of posts in each instead. What a pathetic subhuman being you are, I bet even your fellow mexiniggers are ashamed of you

>>64511634
meane

>>64511644
>see we're both white, now kill urself shitskin!!!1!
>bad cuticles
>shit table
>didn't know France (Burgundy, taking over France) formally modernized into an archer based army during and after the hundred years war
autism

>>64511654
>see we're both white
i don't see it since you never actually bothered to post a pic with a timestamp. we'd be able to have this discussion if you actually did, but alas, you'll continue to evade this point because you're a mystery meat macaco from the continental Americas' equivalent of india.

>(Burgundy, taking over France) formally modernized into an archer based army
and subsequently losing to France proper afterwards. added to the list of bow-wielding losers propmtly. it just keeps growing.

>>64511634
my hand is darker but my ash is whiter. oh the irony

>>64511661
>Burgundy lost to France
You really just 100% do not know any history do you?

>>64511666
hey buddy where is your timestamp
That bow is about 15 years old so yellowed somewhat with age, but I am also exceptionally white. That one of the off the shelf ones you can find from 3riversarchery or custom? Most easy to find longbows now are hickory backed composite to pretend to be yew and I hate them.

>>64511632
english kings were more like lifelong presidents, like the doge, but venice was still a republic, not a monarchy

>>64511678
I'm not the nemesis you are currently in a debate with and I'm not arguing either, just sharing my bow pic :p I made this one myself, you can see the unorthodox wrap-on nocks with a stringer, I doubt anyone would be selling a bow like that but they help eliminate handshock

>>64511684
Nice. Where did you source the stave? Most of the pretillered blanks I've been able to find almost run as much as full bows you can get out of poland or the ukraine and raw lumber in the US is some of the lowest quality I've ever seen.

>>64511678
>he keeps deflecting and evading
in terms of jumping around you're definitely a first class macaco, i'll give you that. desperately trying to drag other people in just to deflect from your shameless theft of forum pics is beyond pathetic.
>You really just 100% do not know any history do you?
yes, i know nothing about the defeat and partition of Burgundy by the French crown and the HRE.

>>64511691
>Where did you source the stave?

I cut it in a forest, a small diameter tree. That's Fraxinus ornus, a species of ash from southern Europe, hence my swarthy epidermis

here's me drawing it. hope you like. around 75#

>>64498133
>no mention of Henry V actually becoming regent and heir to the French throne, marrying the Kings daughter then shitting himself to death months later.

>>64511705
what's the draw length on that? 26" or so?

>>64511707
27-28'', depending on the willpower

>>64511708
that's pretty good for a bow of that size, unless you're a 7' giant in the picture.

>>64511693
>read wikipedia for 10 minutes
>losing an entire duchy over abandoning a marriage arrangement somehow fatal blow to the le myth of the longbow
walk us through this, why do you personally have this dunning Kruger seethe n sneed about the weapon most european field armies gravitated towards in the high middle ages as part of a shift to infantry and standing (semi)professional forces?

>>64511700
>walked outside and cut it down where it's easiest to source bows from
lucky. Most of our local hardwoods are oak, hickory, and stuff like elm which is more conducive to Indian flatbows. I've been burned on a few tillering attempts with sawcut lumber that isn't a dedicated store bought longbow blank (for $120+tip). Here it's like they put that shit through sideways to assure the grain structure runs right through the middle of the board.

>>64511714
>over abandoning a marriage arrangement somehow fatal blow
not really, just another one to the long list of the failures of the longmeme. not like it was relevant enough to talk about until fart sniffing fags from victorian era constructed the hype out of thin air.

walk us through this, how come you're so brown and useless yet latch onto some shitty stick from 600 years ago with less than a century of relevance to note? what draws you to shill for it so obsessively?

>>64511710
yeah, I'm 6'3 with long arms

>>64511714
burned on a few tillering attempts

who hasn't? I always make a breaking test of a short piece at the uppermost end of the stave, that's where broadleafs are the weakest and most porous. If it pops like a dry cookie its barely good to be a tomato stake

>still seething about bongs
pop history moment

>>64511730
>still evading the point and deflecting to bong larp
brownoid moment

>>64511679
You've got it arse-backwards. Presidents are like shitty kings who get deposed after a few years.

>>64511724
>I always make a breaking test of a short piece at the uppermost end of the stave
gonna remember that. Probably should pick up a moisture sensor too if I ever get back into bowmaking. Something about kiln dried lumber seemed to go really wrong lately in the south east US

>>64511732
>point
lol

>>64511733
Like Poland and Sweden and a few other 14th-17th century parliament constrained monarchies half of the civil wars/internal conflicts in these places are monarchists trying to get back to absolute rule for their shitty king.

>>64511632
the idea being that the battle is won by the longbowmen against a force of nobility.
if you'd want a true proto-republican battle to spin up you'd have to use the battle of the golden spurs where a Flemish citizen militia leb by "elected" politicians (heads of the major guilds really as the guild men were the main body of voters) beat the French (and got absolutely slaughtered the next year).

If we are already speaking of the Flemish they were also renowned archers during the high middle ages. They even still have a tradition of archery as a sport. but they don't wank of the bow like it's the spine of their nations existence

>>64511748
yes, the point that bows were not that important, regardless of the wars they were used in, won or lost, despite being overwhelmingly used on the losing side

now about your longmeme obsession, i'm asking again, why are you so hellbent on inflating their credit to an outlandish degree on an anonymous basketweaving forum? i don't even care that much that you're a brown subhuman, i'm interested in why you do it at all.

>>64511714
> most european field armies gravitated towards in the high middle ages as part of a shift to infantry and standing (semi)professional forces?
common =/= good
they gravitated towards archery because equipping a bowman is a lot cheaper than equipping a man at arms. also since they where of lower status you could pay them less.
that was far more important for the perpetually cash strapped proto states of the high middle ages
you are basically saying that the AK is a wunderwaffen because so many countries use it. never mind that it's because they are dirt cheap and you can train a donkey to use one

>>64511753
>actually the katana is SHIT
you've adequately demonstrated your knowledge level about the medieval period, no need to go further with this reddit reaction to babies first arrow vs armor video.

>>64511757
They gravitated towards standing armies with money ties to the monarchy/proto state using billmen/pikemen and 30-50% archers because it negated many of the advantages of cavalry and was useful in siege, garrisoning, and won field battles against armies drawn out of pure feudal obligation and armies of similar composition. It's more like saying the rifleman using a select fire intermediate caliber weapon that can't pen XSAPI becoming the infantry backbone of the modern era with squad level machineguns and anti tank munitions is a meme because everyone could just have battle rifles, which is reductive and retarded (like the NGSW trial).

>>64511751
Belgians have nationalism?

>>64511776
>strawman
>reddit projection
>muh knowledge
so you've given up and will just keep running away from me and keep shilling your pathetic lies like the dickless subhuman shitskin loser we all know you are? great.

>>64511785
>no argument

>>64511786
yes, you have no argument against my points, which is why you consistently keep on evading them.
>posts a shot from a youtube video after spergng out about them in the previous post
what did the macaco mean by this?

>>64511331
Why the fuck would I care to mention british bowmen when the whole point was that others, aside from the english, were no different?
Are you retarded or something?

>>64511776
>was useful in siege, garrisoning, and won field battles against armies drawn out of pure feudal obligation and armies of similar composition.
Not really, crossbows had far more uses in a siege context because it allowed negating some of their shortcomings and bows weren't that great in field battles.

>battle rifle analogy
Wat?
That's completely retarded and doesn't even relate to the topic, as much as I love the NGSW hate.

>>64498201
Mostly politicking to subvert the HRE (I.e the Hapsburgs) and turning France into the superpower of the continent with middling success, it wouldn't be until Napoleon that actually happened. Also supporting protestants even though France was catholic because the protties were destabilising the rest of Hapsburg controlled Europe.

>>64511792
crossbows, especially composite ones, aren't actually left cocked in perpetuity and the short powerstroke and poundage of one you'd belt or claw span is weaker than a bow. Even the crannequin 1000lb draw steel ones just get you back to the same kinetic range as a bow and they don't actually penetrate plate any more or less.
>battle rifle analogy
more "why don't we fight like it's the korean war" analogy. Or "combined arms isn't as good as having infinite tanks". Shit changed and it wasn't because it was cheaper or cheaping out. Standing armies and standardization were crippling expensive, necessary expenditures on early european states versus the older systems of military organization because they were more effective with the progress of industry and technology. After 1450's a man at arms would be entirely buttoned up in plate but you're seeing battles like Flodden in 1513 with upwards of 70,000 men on the field.

>>64511781
the flemish have
>>64511776
you have gone from
>the longbow is a wunderwaffe
to
>the longbow is good just look at how every one was adopting them
and now
>the longbow was a part of combination that worked alongside men at arms, crossbowmen, billmen ect.
the funny thing is that the longbow, on it's own also never won a battle for the Brits in the hundred year war. they always had dismounted knights, men at arms and billmen to fight the French in the melee that followed after the archers had broken a French charge. A charge that was more often than not broken by being trough a muddy field or by going uphill.
and the archers weren't there because they where so damn good but because the English crown was in or close to arears and had to with the cheapest option to fill out their army hence archers.

>>64511831
>the longbow is a wunderwaffe that everyone increasingly adopted to make dismounted men at arms, billmen, etc. work
>the funny thing is that the arquebus, on it's own, also never won a battle in the 30 years war. They always had pikemen, cuirassiers, and rieters to...
I'm sure in a few decades someone will be having this same immortal argument about fiber optic tethered fpv drones

>>64511831
>a weapon isn't good unless it can be used entirely on its own to win a battle
Name one such weapon, faggot

>>64510363
Except most medieval crossbows were comparable in shot power to longbows, and significantly slower to load, those that are much stronger are absolute cunts to load
That is very much a merit, you're actively avoiding the fact that you stated they are
>trash
Because you know you're full of shit and being reactionary

>>64510668
Did most places have laws dictating peasants had to train every week at archery, and pay them a good wage (enough to afford good arms and armor) circa 14th century for military service

>>64496602 (OP)
That's a pretty sweet load out.

>>64511831
it's always like this with this faggot, i remember at least 3 threads that went the exact same way just seeing it in person.

>>64511826
>Even the crannequin 1000lb draw steel ones just get you back to the same kinetic range as a bow and they don't actually penetrate plate any more or less.
modern reproductions are worthless toys and the few times existing crossbows were shot they were several times more powerful than that garbage

>>64511886
calling longbows trash is a perfectly adequate retort to you calling them wunderwaffe in your basedfaced redditor tier OP.

you backpedalling on the shilling and coping every step because your lies keep being proven wrong is what's reactionary and if it's not for that you'd be sucking off anyone who praised the retarded meme weapon you chose to attach yourself to.

>>64511909
>the crossbow is a wonderwaffle... because ok?!
that is literally a Victorianism. Next you'll say they can shoot through a horse lengthwise and staple armored knights to trees.

>>64511850
>>64511861
a wunderwaffe is a weapon that can win a battle on it's own. as such there are no wunderwaffe. all weapons are only as good as the combination they where employed in. as such focusing just on the longbow is retarded wankery.

>>64511932
>the crossbow is a wonderwaffle
again with projections, macaco?

wooden crossbows can match the power of longbows, if the steel or composite bows were worse they wouldn't ever exist. an actual historian took out and shot a surviving 1200lb crossbow to over 400ft, more than twice over any modern imitation could do.

>>64511921
Big arrow production doesn't want you to know this one simple truth

>>64511941
>Big arrow production
no, just one pathetic little shitskin flea that will sit and shit out shill posts desperately clinging to the meme for hours and dozens of posts again and again, doing this every week on different boards the exact same way.

>>64511940
A 1200 pound crossbow would have needed a ratchet pulley system and would have been a horse's ass to reload every time.

>>64511940
>it shot a whole 130 yards
like a... longbow?
lol, lmao even

>>64511954
>130 yards
400+ yards, not feet. my bad.

>>64511947
yes, that's its limitation as a weapon which is why those were probably used during sieges almost exclusively.

however quoting some garbage reproduction that can't toss a bolt stone throw away despite a similar weight and pretending that all crossbows are weak is disingenous.

>>64511962
>that wasn't implessive? well I actually meant yards.
so... like a longbow. Great job retardanon

>>64511978
no longbow in existence can go past 300 yards with non-flight arrows, and even that number is stretching it, you lying faggot.
>that wasn't implessive?
i didn't intend to impress you, i'm just stating facts here and got the unit wrong.

>>64511966
It will go right through an armored knight and his horse though.

>>64512002
not if the knight has special anti-crossbow armor ;^)

>>64511983
>the source I can't produce was just so confusing
period text sources for longbows say 3-400+ yards, those pesky not le accurate reproductions see arrows fly 250-300 yards (900ft) on video for longbows. Even if not full of shit you've still self deboonked your crossbow cope if the physically heaviest, unrecreatable, highest poundage crossbows to ever be made are the only thing to outrange just a common warbow.

>>64503601
>uneducated
You do realize that the French won and that Crécy and Agincourt weren't the only battles of the war?

>>64512009
I don't think that was typical. You hear about 200+ pound draws and John the strong with his one Popeye arm being able to draw it easily but the majority of them were 100-125 pounds.
I can probably loose an arrow at 300 yards with my 75 pound compound but with Hail Mary levels of accuracy.
Imagine doing that with a yew longbow.

>>64512009
>the source I can't produce
Ralph Payne-Galloway, tested such a replica. He describes it in his book in no confusing terms. I just got the terms mixed up.
>those pesky not le accurate reproductions see arrows fly 250-300 yards (900ft) on video for longbows
which is significantly less than that crossbow, and simiar to what a decent wooden crossbow can do.
>you've still self deboonked
can you not talk like the whiniest passive aggressive bitch that got slapped for a second?
>if the physically heaviest, unrecreatable, highest poundage crossbows to ever be made are the only thing to outrange just a common warbow.
the common warbow can't reach 200 yards with normal arrows. a super well made the upper draw weight limit premium reproduction can do more when used by professional athletes, which is not representative of historic performance, or at the very least only for the absolute upper end of it.

claiming that shitty rebar mockups underperforming means all crossbows are is equal to claiming that a shitty 20lb LARP bow is equal to what they used in the 15th century.

>>64512015
Joe Gibbs was able to pull it off with his 140lber with minute of guys levels of accuracy in 2023. Mary rose bows went up to 180 and were made by professional bowyers out of straight grained trunk yew instead of limb yew.

>>64512023
>his full book on archive.org
>is comparing crossbows from the 1490's and later to general concept of the [longbow] from the 1200's on
>1 of all crossbows he says to have found managed a max of 390 yards
>page later admits documented instance of 18th century archer shooting 360 yards, 110 yards further than his general conjecture about bows but surely an exception to prove the rule
>rest of relevant chapter about how fortifications weren't built far/high enough to be safe from arrows if they could fly so far as the widely claimed 400 yards in same breath as saying crossbows outranged that distance and how recorded archery feats just don't count
>unrepeatable by anyone else this side of 1903, but it must be conspiracy and not unverified numbers by a guy writing a book about crossbows
>exact crossbow lost 2 time despite existing in firing condition recent enough for this guy to die in WWI

>>64512061
is it 390? i was sure it was 430 yards for some reason.
>page later admits documented instance of 18th century archer shooting 360 yards, 110 yards further than his general conjecture about bows but surely an exception to prove the rule
archers could absolutely reach that far with lightweight flight arrows, this isn't really that special so that's where confusion might lie.
>unrepeatable by anyone else this side of 1903, but it must be conspiracy and not unverified numbers by a guy writing a book about crossbows
if you know any other tests of extant antiques i'm all ears. this type of crossbow is supposed to have exceptional performance given its cost, weight and reload time. it makes a lot more sense than the idea that they made those things just because despite offering minimal advantages over cheaper, lighter and simpler bows and crossbows.

>>64498254
I doubt the two kingdoms would unite, maybe there'd be a Plantagenet kingdom of France for a while

>>64512098
>the Anglo-French Hapsburgs 2.0

>>64511886
>most medieval crossbows
Up until the late 16th century which is also when the longbow fell off in use
Not a coincidence

>>64511909
Liar

>>64511940
Liar

>>64511978
It's the same nigger from last thread, maybe even OP

>>64512105
why are you samefagging now, macaco?

>>64512073
he also has a big cope section in the 1 20 page chapter about ottoman archery records saying exactly that, that if he just could figure out bolts light enough that'd not explode he'd totally equal the same distances with his special crossbow. The crossbow he described as having this performance would only have a power stroke of less than a foot, more like 8-10 inches, with a prod size of only 31". And nowhere does he mention the grain weight of his bolts used for getting those distances or how it compares to what he considers war arrows, which may be where you're getting some purposefully skewed conclusions with his admitted testing of bolt weights to try and rival those turkroaches.
>why would they build them then
to mimic the performance of warbows without needing the physical strength and extreme practice through sheer force of money. 1 siege crossbow would have cost as much as multiple dozens of warbows. It makes sense why these and lighter crossbows are in armories and castle/household inventories and why all these different kingdom's equipment ordinances expected trained and equipped archers.

>>64511622
>about their proto-republican society being superior to Catholic feudalism.
Exactly. Both at Crecy and Agincourt battle end an dwas deiced by melee fighting if Englaih and French knights. But "out knights were better" doesn't play well as propaganda in society that ascended aboce feudalism
>our feudal lord's better!
>good!?
So English started to parade around how they were different even then. Not like those "somby continental feualds".

But when there were no English knight to save them like during Pattay wundervaffen longbow men were literally roflstomped by small french vanguard of knights.

>>64512061
>>64512073
We've been through this last thread

On Youtube a guy shot a repro wooden composite crossbow and matched or fell slightly below the range of a longbow shot by Tod
Both times both of them were shooting for pure range rather than accuracy

Wooden 1-man crossbows can only match a longbow at best, if not underperform, and require a loading / spanning aid of some kind for ease of use. Longbows are therefore easier and cheaper to manufacture for the same performance. This is because the shorter crossbow limbs and bolt makes it less efficient for the same draw weight.

The way late 16th century crossbows managed to get around this limitation is by using iron limbs and iron windlasses, picrel repro. Furthermore, knights began wearing ever more thicker pieces of armour. Longbows couldn't match this development and so fell off in use, at least against such heavily-armoured opponents.

It's possible that the Mary Rose still carried longbowmen because it would be rare to encounter opponents wearing such massively heavy plate in naval combat of the time. It would be far too easy for that man-at-arms or knight too fall overboard and drown.

>>64512119
Uh oh
Melty

>>64512123
>Wooden 1-man crossbows can only match a longbow at best,
If they use short limbs.
With long limbs only sky is limit. Though most crossbows used short limbs to operate from inside fortifications.

>>64512118
>he also has a big cope section
i don't necessarily agree with his conclusion, only appreciate his testing because it's unique as far as archaeology goes.
>And nowhere does he mention the grain weight of his bolts used for getting those distances or how it compares to what he considers war arrows, which may be where you're getting some purposefully skewed conclusions with his admitted testing of bolt weights to try and rival those turkroaches.
if we go by the modern performance than such a crossbow would be impossible to reach more than half the distance with using any bolt weight. they just don't have the limb velocity for that. they might muscle a heavy bolt for some ok muzzle energy but they do jack shit if you go lighter weight.
>to mimic the performance of warbows
don't need 1200lbs to do that, basic wooden crossbows that did so had existed for centuries by then.
>It makes sense why these and lighter crossbows are in armories and castle/household inventories and why all these different kingdom's equipment ordinances expected trained and equipped archers.
you're trying to sneak in a falsehood there, if anything most nations traied more crossbowmen during high-late middle ages than professional archers.

>>64512123
>The way late 16th century crossbows managed to get around this limitation is by using iron limbs and iron windlasses, picrel repro. Furthermore, knights began wearing ever more thicker pieces of armour
Anon 16th century is gunpowder revolution.
1525 battle of Pavia happens
1526 Pavia 2.0 (Battle of Mohacs)
In both cases they were decided by new military wundervaffen (now real) called an arquebus.
HRE emperor literally made an educt banning bows and crossbow from usage by landsknecht as useless toys (salary was only paid to arquebusers).

>>64512129
actually early crossbows often had fuckoff huge limbs, relatively speaking

>>64512123
>shot a repro wooden composite crossbow
actually purely wooden one
>Both times both of them were shooting for pure range rather than accuracy
that's what range testing is. you hold it up 45 degrees and shoot.
>Wooden 1-man crossbows can only match a longbow at best
that's a funny way to say that the longbows can match a wooden crossbow at best, lol.
>and require a loading / spanning aid of some kind for ease of use
just sit down and draw it, like they did for 200+ years.
> Longbows are therefore easier and cheaper to manufacture for the same performance.
not "therefore", illiterate, they are cheaper period, nobody argued against that. if anything this means that those crossbows justified their cost somehow instead of disappearing without a trace.

>>64512123
you're broadly right, but neither of them could be expected to penetrate plate armor and no one intended them to.

We have 2 possible conclusions
>history inflated ranges and IRL both are about equal and 2/3's of what was reported
or
>we can't replicate either due to a confluence of factors so falling back to reported claims they were roughly equal as all the battlefield treatises and firsthand accounts viewed them

>>64512134
"testing" is a stretch, it's 2 pages of 20 pages saying what he tested then 18 pages saying every other first hand account before him was lying/doing what we're doing and nitpicking. There isn't even a table of tested crossbows (or auction catalog/museum numbers) with relevant things like poundage, draw stroke, or projectile grain rate to give any credence to this one guy getting an extra 100+ yards out of a crossbow than anyone else since.
>200lb belt span composite crossbow justasgood
they aren't, but le modern rebar bow testing doesn't count to retards
>u lie
you can read the widely known, all translated, ordinances as well as anyone else as to how levies and standing bodies of troops were supposed to be armed. Same but less accessible castle/estate inventories. And all the prices of shit as import, export, inheritance, etc. to compare to each other.

>>64512158
>"testing" is a stretch
"i shot the crossbow, it went X yards" qualifies as testing to me.
>There isn't even a table of tested crossbows (or auction catalog/museum numbers) with relevant things like poundage, draw stroke, or projectile grain rate
unfortunately the 19th century standards of testing aren't the same as today but this is the best we have.
>200lb belt span composite crossbow
who are you talking to? the voices in your head?
>you can read the widely known, all translated, ordinances as well as anyone else as to how levies and standing bodies of troops were supposed to be armed.
given how most soldiers had to provide their own equipment during middle ages, this hardly matters outside of rare few cases.

btw, are you still the same shitskin guy who refuses to post his hand despite shitting up this thread for days on end?

>>64512166
>soldiers had to provide their own equipment... as per their income level or were in violation of the law with listed fines and penalties for non compliance in most of western europe
>...towns and parish/county/etc. maintained and equipped their own militias as mandated by law of the time?
why are you reading 120 year old books about crossbows if you don't know anything about the high medieval period.

>>64512129
>If they use short limbs.
>With long limbs only sky is limit
In theory yes, you could build what would basically be a longbow with a rail and trigger. Also to gain the full power you still need a person with the strength of a longbowman to span that crossbow. once again, at that point just build a longbow.

They probably also had problems with the lock and nut mechanism. I know I did, trying to do shit with Lego and rubber bands as a young boy. That was when I empirically learned about material stress limits.

>>64512137
>16th century is gunpowder revolution
The time periods overlap
Remember also that it's a whole century long.

>>64512146
>that's a funny way to say that the longbows can match a wooden crossbow at best
Not at all
The crossbow achieved slightly shorter range, by a difference of a dozen yards or so. The sample size was small so I gave it the benefit of the doubt and said it might match at best.
>just sit down and draw
Indeed
But longbows can be drawn, nocked and shot faster than that. Hence the qualifier I wrote.
Apples and oranges, retard-kun
>not "therefore", illiterate
Wrong
>this means that those crossbows justified their cost somehow instead of disappearing without a trace
Note the special pleading

Seethe, cope, and dial 8

>>64512185
>The crossbow achieved slightly shorter range, by a difference of a dozen yards or so
the crossbow also didn't represent an optimal design, just a simple reproduction. unlike bows there's not an industry for wooden crossbows. some other hobbyists produced similar feats and if we put more effort into it it's very possible these crossbows can be improved further.
>But longbows can be drawn, nocked and shot faster than that.
which didn't prove to be very important.
>Wrong
illiterate shitskin subhuman.
>pleading
your entire thread is pleading, i'm stating facts here.

>Seethe, cope, and dial 8
i will consider it if you post hand with a timestamp.

>>64512158
>neither of them could be expected to penetrate plate armor and no one intended them to.
They did however
At i think 50 yards at least in Tod's testing, the longbow penetrated two sheets of 1" thick medieval plate and the mail beneath and would have cut to the bone of the knight's arm. It also penetrated the helmet to an extent, possibly enough to wound. This is enough to penetrate any part of a late 15th Milanese suit except the front middle section of the breastplate which is thicker than 1". Earlier suits and suits from other manufacturers would be entirely vulnerable as they topped out at 1" thickness.
(Tod's testing was based on a repro of the Churbourg suit. Separate testing confirmed that medieval arrowheads punch easily through 1" medieval plate.)

Furthermore a point has been made that if the knight was charging towards the archer, on foot or especially on horseback, the momentum of the arrowhead at penetration would be even greater and might enhance penetration even more.

To me, the rigour of this particular set of experiments is quite enough to settle the subject, I think.

>>64512185
>In theory yes, you could build what would basically be a longbow with a rail and trigger.
some guys out there put that theory into practice.
>Also to gain the full power you still need a person with the strength of a longbowman to span that crossbow.
no you don't, you can pull it with both hands against a rest, which is vastly easier than drawing a bow.

>>64512213
We know such bows exist, there are medieval pictures. What kind of performance did they get out of it, however?

>>64512198
Very well

>>64512213
>vastly easier than drawing a bow.
Nope

>>64512198
>didn't represent an optimal design, just a simple reproduction
No shit, dumbass
That's like moaning that the longbow wasn't an optimised recurve composite design either
The medieval design they found and reproduced is what the crossbowmen used, anything else is hindsight-powered speculation

>>64512205
>penetrated two sheets of 1" thick medieval plate
>1" thick medieval plate

>>64512205
you seem to have wildly misinterpreted about every conclusion of the arrows vs armor pt1&2 they released
>cosmetic penetration or dents mainly
>jupons surprisingly actually do something
>arrows explode at the shank and vibrational nodes of shaft on most square impacts with plate
>mail doesn't do shit without exterior coverage or as backer for plate, even tested against square of that one mail autists painstaking historic recreation mail

stating repeatedly armor is an inch thick makes me doubt you can speak english for real and gives the seething archery le bad retard unneeded ammunition by overstating what any arrow or bolt could actually do to the plate part of plate armor after ~1350

>>64512220
good job, i'm willing to engage with you in earnest now.

that crossbow is 150lbs, which is easy to draw according to the guy who made it, easily hand-spanned. range is over 200 yards, not much beyond that.

here's a more interesting one in terms of performance testing: a bit smaller bow with 240lb draw weight, still drawn without any implements while standing. with a 70g bolt it reached 196m, with 41g - 240m at supposedly a suboptimal angle to be able to find bolts easier.

>>64512225
>That's like moaning that the longbow wasn't an optimised recurve composite design either
longbow is optimal for its construction method, a replica crossbow is unlikely to be as refined, especially if it's based on an example with mismatched parts.
>The medieval design they found and reproduced is what the crossbowmen used
berkhamstead bow they based theirs on is quite wonky like that. there's no explanation for otherwise massive prod for such a short draw length other than its maker ate the wrong kind of honey prior to creating it.

>>64512225
>Nope
there are very few people who can draw a 100lb bow. there are very many people who can do a pullup. connect the dots, m8.

drawing a bow is basically like doing a one handed pullup with its weight every time you draw it. the world record for it is exactly 200lbs.

>>64512231
>>64512236
>1"
>and my job is counting beans
Fugg
Brb committing sudoku

>cosmetic penetration
Okay i had a proper look at the results instead of relying on my fuzzy memory

In Tod's testing the arrow made it easily through to bone on flatter and thinner (1.6mm) arm pieces, but skipped off rounder bascinets and rounder, thicker (2.5mm) cuirass chests

>>64512240
Cheers
Note amended figures above, my apologies

Well your figures aren't surprising really for crossbows. For the same draw weight the crossbow doesn't throw its bolt as far and hard as a longbow does. Tod achieved 400 yards with a 160lb bow, optimised for range.

>>64512253
>drawing a bow is basically like doing a one handed pullup with its weight every time you draw it
There's a technique for doing it which mainly uses your back/shoulders instead of relying on your biceps as in a pullup

>>64512250
>its maker ate the wrong kind of honey prior to creating it.
Heh
Well I have to check what other repro crossbow i was thinking of, because my memory has just been shown to be rather embarrassingly faulty

>>64512255
>Well your figures aren't surprising really for crossbows. For the same draw weight the crossbow doesn't throw its bolt as far and hard as a longbow does.
yes, draw weight is just one part of the calculation, the other is draw length or more precisely the power stroke. so a twice as long power stroke bow can be made twice as light, in theory, to have the same performance. on top of that there's the limb efficiency which measures how effectively the bow releases that stored power. it varies quite a bit with different bows and crossbows but it's easy to measure by comparing muzzle energy to the above formula.

with crossbows you get a shorter power stroke due to the shorter prod, although the 240lb bow in my picture above has a 15" one, with a similar prod length to the berkhamstead bow i talked about earlier. the huge 150lb one also had 15" of power stroke, a less optimal design.

longbows have draw lengths of 28-32" but have higher brace height, usually around 6" so the power stroke is 22-28" instead.

with crossbows due to separation of spanning and holding the string with a mechanism, you can do the spanning more effectively, drawing higher weights, which allows heavier poundage bows, compensating for the shorter power stroke.

>>64512264
>There's a technique for doing it which mainly uses your back/shoulders instead of relying on your biceps as in a pullup
you can kind of keep your bow arm extended and up and after pulling the string partway just lower the bow downwards, drawing it further while keeping your hands fixed but it's still a ton of work. holding that weight while aiming is even more work on top. that's why archers would usually release the arrow right as they drew it and aimed - it's very tiresome to keep holding that weight.

now imagine doing this for some 60 times at least(which is how many arrows an archer would typically carry). no wonder archers typically didn't shoot much faster than once a minute over the course of battles.

>>64512139
google berkhamsted crossbow

>>64497517
we did win, God Himself sent a saint to try and save you and we had your religious authority declare her a heretic and burn her alive
if that's not winning then I don't know what is

>>64512272
of note is that most crossbow prods struggle with lighter arrows, the limb velocity has a limit so if you go with light arrows you might get more velocity but only some, reducing efficiency. there are some ways to address them but they're quite rare and not very thoroughly tested.

longbows actually struggle with that too, to a lesser extent. they achieve good efficiency with heavy arrows but lighter ones still result in substantial efficiency losses, even if they can extend the range somewhat.

composite bows have by far the greatest limb velocity and can absolutely send lightweight arrows flying, with shots of 600 yards or more possible with flight arrows. although they still gain a bit of efficiency compared to wood due to using lighter, stronger materials much like fiberglass does, the difference is much less pronounced with heavy arrows and is largely determined by the overall draw length and poundage, with extra pre-stressed starting weight added by the recurve.

>>64498127
>Charles VI "the mad" becomes king of France and fucks everything up, because he's mad
I love history

Crossbows are meant to be aimed at the face or exposed head, that's why military quarrels have those stubby pyramidal heads instead of broadheads like type 16 or long bodkins. Those are not anti-armour, they are anti-bone.

>>64512330
yeah, the design persisted through the centuries and owing to its simplicity and propensity in manuscripts it's likely to be the most common type of design regardless of the period.

it's just that popular attention is largely drawn to other types of crossbows from the later periods, sleighting this type of design or ignoring it entirely.

>>64505985
if its true that God favours the side with the best artillery then that is entirely on brand for her

>>64512351
those stubby square heads are common on arrow heads of the period too, and they perform better against plate than needle bodkins do, although still not so great but nothing is really.

>>64512352
forgot pic related