860 réponses à ce sujet

[Nattfare]

What else would he do with it though? Go around fighting people?

I always pull this one out whenever I spot a monastery.

Spoiler

I wish I had one for real.

[Qwib Qwib]

What else would he do with it though? Go around fighting people?

 

Wa-wait, s-so, you're telling me that all that he can do with a sword is fight people?

 

 

 

It is great fun. 

 

Oh, and remind him to keep the blade oily. 

[Nattfare]

Definitely should mention the longbow.
 


The English overhyped it to such a degree that they believed in it themselves.

But for its purpose on the medieval battlefield in Europe, I think it was unmatched.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Got that wrong I see... now where did I get it from that they were shorter??

There was some badass in the British army armed with a claymore and a longbow during WWII I think.

Yup Jack Churchill. The most badass dude ever.
Joined the Marines because it "Sounded like fun"
Carried only a Sword, Longbow (has the only confirmed longbow kills in the war), and Bagpipes. He felt any soldier not carrying a sword was underdressed.
And walked out of 2 Nazi prison camps simply because he was bored.

[Qwib Qwib]

Yup Jack Churchill. The most badass dude ever.

Carried a basket-hilt Scottish sword (sometimes incorrectly called a Claymore), a longbow (has the only confirmed English longbow kill in the war), and a bagpipe. 
 

Played The March of the Cameron Men when disembarking of his boat, in the beginning of Operation Archery.

 

Took 42 prisoners in La Molina (including a mortar squadron)

 

Fixed.

 

Wikipedia's article is pure hype.

[TheClonesLegacy]

It is. But the Prison camp thing is true...

[Qwib Qwib]

It is. But the Prison camp thing is true...

 

I don't quite think it is. You don't ''walk out'' of a German prisoner camp out of boredom. 

[Nattfare]

I don't quite think it is. You don't ''walk out'' of a German prisoner camp out of boredom. 

He was going out to take a p**s and they forgot about making sure that he came back.

[TheClonesLegacy]

I don't quite think it is. You don't ''walk out'' of a German prisoner camp out of boredom. 

Not exactly walked out (He dug out of one)

But he did escape twice.

[Qwib Qwib]

Hmmm. Dodgy.

 

 

 

Anyway, Arnold Schwarzenegger also broke out of his military base.

 

To go pose his muscles in Stuttgart.

 

He got to Stuttgart in a train. Took him 26 hours to get there. 

 

When he got there he realized he didn't bring anything with him. 

 

He asked another guy if he could borrow his trunks. 

 

He managed to borrow someone else's trunks to wear. 

[bEVEsthda]

Definitely should mention the longbow.
 


The English overhyped it to such a degree that they believed in it themselves.

But for its purpose on the medieval battlefield in Europe, I think it was unmatched.

 

No.They didn't overhype it at all. There is plenty of written material from the period, which is all very consistent in their claims.

It's simply not reasonable to assume that it's all BS. On the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that historic accounts are actually true in some way. Particularly if they all say the same things.

 

It's all  the historians' fault. As often, they were a little too unimaginative. Their concept of what a "longbow" was, had its basis in weak 40 to 50 lbs bows used by english nobility for hunting. Since then, caches of real, genuine, military, english bows have been found. These are now called "warbows" to distinguish them from the misunderstood "longbow".  It's the same bow, kinda. Same simple, scraped stave of Yew. Only, they were made in drawing strengths from 140 to 190 lbs.

 

So, suddenly everything fits. Such a bow will shoot through 3 to 5 inches of solid, hard oak. Such a bow will shoot 300 to 400 m. Just as the accounts say. And given that many modern experiments, with the weaker 50 lbs bows, shows penetration of armor, it's easy to extrapolate what the "Warbow" would have done.

Even the skeletons of old archers agree. They all have deformations from a lifetime of adapting to extreme drawing strengths.

This also explains why other countries couldn't follow. It wasn't just the bow. It was the archers. The generations of archer culture.

 

"But it's impossible to shoot such bows!"  No it's not. First, people forget that the English archers trained all their life, since early boyhood. Part of that training was to shoot farther, with progressively stronger bows. Then they weren't used as the modern bows or the composite bows. They didn't draw, hold and aim. The drawing motion would end with the release of the arrow. It was a dynamic movement. Aiming was done per muscle memory. They would also not draw the bow more than they needed, i.e. distance. And full draw was not achieved only by drawing the string. They likely also pushed the bow forward.

While no one today would deform and cripple themselves in order to be able to draw a bow, modern Warbow enthusiasts are approaching quite respectable drawing forces.

 

You will likely not find many historians fully underwriting this. Not completely. They're in some kind of denial and fully busy with trying to 'negotiate' down the draw strengths. They've spent so much time contriving, concocting and arguing alternative, wild, complex reasons for the British longbow victories. Other than the one reason stated in every account from the period. The one reason that would justify why England put so much emphasis on its archers.

[Nattfare]

Won't dispute any of that. I find it remarkable that they managed to draw those monsters at all.
The English were very impressed with that bow when the Welsh used it against them in their rebellions.
I just think they relied upon it a bit too much at times as it seems that they often employed lots of archers, but less in infantry and cavalry. Could very well be wrong, my knowledge of English warfare is minimal.

I just feel that it gets a bit silly when one part claims that you could punch through plate armour with the "longbow" while others claim that it was actually a pretty useless bow because it couldn't penetrate armour that well.
Which wasn't even the purpose of any bow out there and yet this is often what this bow gets judged upon.

[mybudgee]

Warm weapon:

 

[Qwib Qwib]

Presenting another polearm with origins in agricultural use...

 

The Billhook!

 

 An example of a late billhook.

 

 

 

Notably, earlier billhooks looked far more similar to the agricultural instrument itself. It was literally a billhook atop of a pole. Later units included implements that made the billhook a very competent polearm that was perfectly designed for hooking. As a bonus:

 

 

Some Italian and English re-enactors at Cardiff Castle. 

[Qwib Qwib]

Won't dispute any of that. I find it remarkable that they managed to draw those monsters at all.
The English were very impressed with that bow when the Welsh used it against them in their rebellions.
I just think they relied upon it a bit too much at times as it seems that they often employed lots of archers, but less in infantry and cavalry. Could very well be wrong, my knowledge of English warfare is minimal.

I just feel that it gets a bit silly when one part claims that you could punch through plate armour with the "longbow" while others claim that it was actually a pretty useless bow because it couldn't penetrate armour that well.
Which wasn't even the purpose of any bow out there and yet this is often what this bow gets judged upon.

 

Very important:

 

It needs to be said that the bow does half the job. What you people refuse to consider is the arrow itself. War arrows were thicker and longer. Some had heads that were made specifically to penetrate armor. Bursting chainmail links is one thing. Pushing through a steel plate is another. Another which would be a pretty hard feat. Could be managed.

With the strength of the bow itself and a good war arrow, there is very good potential. 

[Dermain]

No.They didn't overhype it at all. There is plenty of written material from the period, which is all very consistent in their claims.

It's simply not reasonable to assume that it's all BS. On the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that historic accounts are actually true in some way. Particularly if they all say the same things.

 

It's all  the historians' fault. As often, they were a little too unimaginative. Their concept of what a "longbow" was, had its basis in weak 40 to 50 lbs bows used by english nobility for hunting. Since then, caches of real, genuine, military, english bows have been found. These are now called "warbows" to distinguish them from the misunderstood "longbow".  It's the same bow, kinda. Same simple, scraped stave of Yew. Only, they were made in drawing strengths from 140 to 190 lbs.

 

So, suddenly everything fits. Such a bow will shoot through 3 to 5 inches of solid, hard oak. Such a bow will shoot 300 to 400 m. Just as the accounts say. And given that many modern experiments, with the weaker 50 lbs bows, shows penetration of armor, it's easy to extrapolate what the "Warbow" would have done.

Even the skeletons of old archers agree. They all have deformations from a lifetime of adapting to extreme drawing strengths.

This also explains why other countries couldn't follow. It wasn't just the bow. It was the archers. The generations of archer culture.

 

"But it's impossible to shoot such bows!"  No it's not. First, people forget that the English archers trained all their life, since early boyhood. Part of that training was to shoot farther, with progressively stronger bows. Then they weren't used as the modern bows or the composite bows. They didn't draw, hold and aim. The drawing motion would end with the release of the arrow. It was a dynamic movement. Aiming was done per muscle memory. They would also not draw the bow more than they needed, i.e. distance. And full draw was not achieved only by drawing the string. They likely also pushed the bow forward.

While no one today would deform and cripple themselves in order to be able to draw a bow, modern Warbow enthusiasts are approaching quite respectable drawing forces.

 

You will likely not find many historians fully underwriting this. Not completely. They're in some kind of denial and fully busy with trying to 'negotiate' down the draw strengths. They've spent so much time contriving, concocting and arguing alternative, wild, complex reasons for the British longbow victories. Other than the one reason stated in every account from the period. The one reason that would justify why England put so much emphasis on its archers.

Very important:

 

It needs to be said that the bow does half the job. What you people refuse to consider is the arrow itself. War arrows were thicker and longer. Some had heads that were made specifically to penetrate armor. Bursting chainmail links is one thing. Pushing through a steel plate is another. Another which would be a pretty hard feat. Could be managed.

With the strength of the bow itself and a good war arrow, there is very good potential. 

 

It also doesn't help that in any medieval war game (Mount and Blade/Chivalry) you end up with people irrationally hating archers. It gets worse if the archers get nerfed into oblivion as well. I remember at one point in a multiplayer mod for M&B Warband archers couldn't even kill naked people without shooting 20 arrows into them.

[AventuroLegendary]

[vometia]

A couple of things from my sword collection, which are happily back in my possession after the police "borrowed" them lately.

[Dermain]

A couple of things from my sword collection, which are happily back in my possession after the police "borrowed" them lately.

 

Who did you kill with those?

[vometia]

Who did you kill with those?

Nobody. They're too pretty to kill people with!

[Inquisitor Recon]

It also doesn't help that in any medieval war game (Mount and Blade/Chivalry) you end up with people irrationally hating archers. It gets worse if the archers get nerfed into oblivion as well. I remember at one point in a multiplayer mod for M&B Warband archers couldn't even kill naked people without shooting 20 arrows into them.

Well historically archers (and crossbowmen) weren't all that popular. Nobles in many nations would never use a crossbow in warfare themselves although they'd often employ as many mercenary crossbowmen (who could make quite a good wage) as possible.
 

I doubt anybody with a melee weapon (IRL or in a game) getting arrows shot at them is going to have nice things to say at whoever is doing it.

 

No idea what truth there is to it but supposedly everybody's favorite gesture (flipping people off) was originally the English response to the French threat to maim the hands of captured longbowmen.

[vometia]

No idea what truth there is to it but supposedly everybody's favorite gesture (flipping people off) was originally the English response to the French threat to maim the hands of captured longbowmen.

Well, two fingers rather than one finger, which is still the vulgar hand gesture of choice in the UK, although the US-style one-fingered greeting has become more popular recently.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Well, two fingers rather than one finger, which is still the vulgar hand gesture of choice in the UK, although the US-style one-fingered greeting has become more popular recently.

 

What kind of finger?

 

My favorite is:

 

[Inquisitor Recon]

Well, two fingers rather than one finger, which is still the vulgar hand gesture of choice in the UK, although the US-style one-fingered greeting has become more popular recently.

We Americans improved upon it and simplified it thanks to our laziness.