What stopped medieval armies from spamming archers?
>muh armor
longbows also Mongols did well with heavy emphasis on archery
>>1056499
It takes a long ass time to train up longbowmen, OP. England was running out of them by the end of the 100 years wars; meanwhile, France could spam crossbowmen with minimal training and get similiar -- though substandard -- results.
>>1056499
Hand make 100 arrows and get back to us.
>>1056499
A quick and smashing cavalry charge.
>>1056499
I think some armies like persia did spam archers. The ones that didnt spam archers probably realized (or failed to realized):
>natural talent firing arrows at the enemy
>Time it takes to train someone to be effective at archery takes more time that telling someone to stab stab stab
>the enemy often had armor or wood to stand in front of which rendered the arrow useless
>expensive projectiles to make
>non-retrievable
>archer spam is destroyed by any other spam (cavalry or infantry)
>Death for death, melee infantry would do the real work.
Some ideas
The English did. The majority of the English army was bowmen. Most other European countries did not have a strong bow culture.
In real life, as compared to Total War games, archers aren't extremely effective. The English only won great victories with their archers when they were defending a fixed position with protected flanks. "Spam archers" isn't the solution to everything.
>>1056514
this.
Same with gunpowder-weapons later. Pleb weapons for the plebs.
/thread
>>1056545
>the English
>the English
>the English
Their best archers were Welsh
>>1056556
Go to bed Winnifried.
>>1056499
Yes. Muh Armor did.
Also
>Muh Shit accuracy
>Muh Wonky range
>Muh this takes way too fucking long
>Muh good luck receiving a charge from armored guys.
"Archer Spam" is only good in one place: Central Asia. Due to the method of war in that place consisting of lightly armored niggas. And even the armored cunts that can usually can afford to armor themselves but not their horses. Wanna spot an elite central asian nomadic person, look for the guy with armor on both him and his horse. AND his other horses.
Its a fact that the civilized nations around Central Asia managed to play with. Whenever they got their shit together, Persian, Russian, and Chinese infantry - working with cavalry- can and did wipe the field with nomads by massing archers and crossbows and later on muskets to form an anchor in the battlefield that their horsemen could retreat to and rearm.
Meanwhile Nomads can do nothing but run.
>>1056532
>archer spam is destroyed by any other spam
>what are Mongols
>>1056586
But they are a separate culture, identity and ethnic group to the English
>>1056575
Battle of Legnica shows that heavy armor is shit against horse archers as well.
>>1056586
>Nevertheless, both East and Western designs were much more accurate than early firearms, particularly over longer distances. They had a much higher rate of fire. And they required fewer materials and logistics to manufacture and supply. Surely any military commander would have preferred them over firearms.
>Well, yes. Except for one big disadvantage: bows require a high degree of skill to use proficiently.
>Nieminen points out that while Chinese armies had a huge pool of skilled archers to pick from, European armies did not. The Europeans therefore trained their soldiers to use firearms, which could be done relatively quickly.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422365/the-puzzling-evolution-of-guns-versus-bows/
I can hardly read what you posted. Pretty bad OCR+Old English.
>>1056634
Your article guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
The period sources are explicit, as are the battles between bowmen and musketeers. Military writers like Montluc, Humphrey Barwick, Roger Williams, Barnabe Riche, and Robert Barret are explicit that bowmen were shit compared to musketeers.
>>1056586
>Wales is not a country
>>1056597
As usual, tactics goes a long way. Shit in war isn't clear cut and dry.
But dude, seriously, armor goes a long way protecting you from arrows.
>>1056634
China was switching to firearms as well. They just couldnt manage to equip everyone with such weapons in their hugeassfuck army. Not to mention Horse Archery was still the missile cavalry par excellence. Not even dragoons can top em in Central Asia. Muzzle Loaders are shit mounted weapons.
The same things that stops modern armies from being nothing but artillery.
>>1056514
Didn't they also kill all the Yew trees in England or something?
>>1056499
Archers are great against footsloggers, but they fold to cavalry and especially to heavily-armored cavalry. The famous English victories at Crecy and Agincourt notwithstanding, the dominance of heavy cavalry in continental warfare tended to depreciate archers. Only England and Wales, without a strong cavalry tradition and under the rule of a single king from very early on, could afford to give archers the status they did.
>>1056739
Why was Angicourt so much different from other engagements?
>>1056757
Terrain, and the eagerness of the French to engage before forming into proper order.
>>1056757
Lots of mud and dumb frogs
>>1056499
For foot archers - heavy cavalry.
Unless you have good conditions like in Agincourt you're gonna get stomped(and even then, archers started doing something significant after they went out of arrows and encircled the French) by them.
For horse archers - ordinary archers - as they will outrange them.
Other than that there's that logistics thing. If you want to do long range salvos like English did, you need to use huge bows, to use huge bows you need trained manpower that is standing soldiers. In medieval world standing army was limited to few thousands people(more 2-3 than 5-7) and that's only in relatively rich countries, levies though... they were everywhere. Of course supplying arrows is also an issue.
>>1056757
lots of drunk frogs
>>1056785
Why weren't Mongols countered by regular archers then?
Here's the war hero Sir Roger Williams on bows ca. 1590.
"Touching Bow men, I persuade my selfe five hundred musketers are more serviceable than fifteene hundred bow-men; from that rate to the greater numbers in all manner of services: my reasons are thus: among 5000. Bowmen, you shall not finde 1000 good Archers, I meane to shoot strong shoots; let them be in the field 3. or 4. months, hardly find of 5000. scarce 500. able to make any strong shootes. In defending or assay∣ling any trenches, lightly they must discover themselues to make faire shoots; where the others shot spoile them, by reason they discover nothing of themselves unlesse it be a litle through small holes. Few or none do any great hurt 12. or 14. score off; they are not to be compared unto the other shoots to line battels...
In our ancient wars, our enemies used Crossebows, and such shoots; few, or any at all had the use of long bowes as we had; wherefore none could compare with us for shot: but GOD forbid we should trie our bowes with their Muskets and Calivers, without the like shot to answere them."
>>1056735
No. English Yew didn't make good bows. The climate is too damp and the trees don't grow straight enough. The best bows were made from Swiss yew. Merchants were required to pay a tariff with imported bow staves.
Nonetheless, the best bows still cost about a tenth of what a musket did.
>>1056757
There were lots of battles similar to Agincourt, where the English took up a strong defensive position and shot the enemy to pieces as they advanced. That tactic stopped working after the battle of Formigny, where the French realized that they could bombard the English with artillery and force them to leave their position.
>>1056785
>to use huge bows you need trained manpower that is standing soldiers.
It is precisely because England was so small and poor, and so unable to field any serious number of expensive knights, that it relied so heavily on archers. Laws compelled English peasants to practise with the longbow, they might become semi-professional war archers during a long campaign but they were ultimately far cheaper to field than a "real" army.
>>1056797
Because Mongols never got into conquering a country that was prepared to fight.
>>1056797
The Mongols were not "just" horse-archers, they carried lances and swords and could double as heavy cavalry against enemy archers.
>>1056556
The Welsh never made up a significant proportion of archers in the HYW English Army. The concept of longbow tactics was derived from the Welsh, though
>>1056806
Sounds like someone is bitter over losing an ancestor 650+ years ago
>>1056499
Armor.
And shields
>>1056807
>Because Mongols never got into conquering a country that was prepared to fight.
kek
>>1056499
Well.
Who says they didn't?
French, Burgundians, Scots, English all had longbow archers.
>>1056499
You can't spam anything in real life, because you can't just pop a longbowman from a hut by spending x gold, y food, and z wood.
>>1056873
Rome spammed infantry.
>>1056577
They had more cavalry than archers which isnt a spam
>>1056785
>For horse archers - ordinary archers - as they will outrange them.
Ordinary archers do not out range horse archers. Their biggest advantage is their fire density.
>>1056890
Cavalry and archers were the same thing in their army.
>>1056499
Archers aren't that effect. Arrows aren't like bullets, they don't go into your body with so much force that they turn the inside into a mushy cavity. They just stick in you. They might give you a bad infection, but that kills you after the battle.
So to an extent they are more or a harassment force and skirmishing force, not the main method to kill or rout your enemies.
The Mongols are other steppe peoples were succesful because they combined it with shooting and riding away again on a horse, which was hard to beat and tired your enemies so much they ran away and then you could chase them down. A force or pure archers on foot will not be successful otherwise.
Unless you're Kushites with the worlds most powerful bows and the ability to hit mens eyes from 200 meters away, they fucked everyone up and are the reason the area remained unconquered for so many centuries.
>>1056597
First of all: The Battle of Legnica took place in the mid 13th century. This was before plate armour was even around. Second: a million accounts from the middle ages tell us that even mail armour was perfectly sufficient in protecting against arrow and most famous people who were seriously wounded from arrows were wounded in freak accident, e.g. when they took off their helmets. Thirdly: the Battle of Legnica was a battle between a Mongol army, the poorly equipped remnants of a Polish army, a few German and Silesian knights, and poorly trained and equipped people that were hastily drafted from the city. This battle is not representative of anything.
>>1056797
The European answer to Mongols were crossbows, armoured knights and fortifications.
>[King Béla IV] spent the next few decades reforming Hungary in preparation for possible future invasions. He used a variety of methods to do this. In 1247 he concluded a feudal agreement with the Knights of St. John, giving them the southeastern borderland in exchange for their help in creating more armored cavalry and fortifications. In 1248, he declared the country's middle strata could enter a baron's service, on the condition that the barons lead the men on his land properly equipped (in armor) into the king's army. Documents from the time state that "the nobles of our country can enter into military service of bishops in the same way in which they can serve other nobles". After 1250, free owners of small or middle sized estates serving directly under the king were included (along with barons) in the nobility. Finally, new settlers were given "conditional" nobility in exchange for the requirement of fighting mounted and armored at the king's request.[9] In 1259, he requested that the Pope put him into contact with Venice, as he wanted to hire at least 1,000 crossbowmen (crossbows having also proven a very effective weapon against the Mongols, despite the relatively small numbers of them actually deployed by the Hungarians in 1241).[10]
>To cement his new defense doctrine, the king offered grants and rewards to cities and nobles in exchange for the building of stone fortifications. The reforms ultimately paid off. By the end of his reign, Béla IV had overseen the building of nearly 100 new fortresses.[11] Of these 100, 66 were made of stone.[12] This was a major upgrade from 1241, when the kingdom only possessed 10 stone castles, half of which were placed along the border with the Duchy of Austria.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
>>1056893
No, they had lancers and foot archers as well.
The "muh whole army is horse archers" meme needs to die. What the fuck were they supposed to do when they ran out of arrows? Or came across an entrenched position, or an army holding a river or mountain pass?
>>1056977
Say mean words to the enemy and hope for emotional breakdown.
>>1056977
>No, they had lancers a
Thing is, in Asia, from China/Korea/Up to 1500's Japan to the Middle East, Cavalry is, well, just cavalry.
The only true division between Asian Cavalry is
>Light
>Heavy
Thats it.
But every cavalryman in Asia was a fucking archer. No exceptions. This was largely due to the existence of Central Asian nomads or the need to fight in Central Asia even by the civilized cunts. It was a necessity for a cavalryman to also be a bowman in that part of the world.
Sure the heavy guys might call an attendant to fetch a lance, but they know their way around a bow.
>>1056520
>Form ranks! Pikes front, archers behind!
>>1056577
Mongolid typical tactic
>Send heavily armed shock cavalry
>Get blasted by archers
>Those who survived, fight to death to lower enemy infantry morale
>Mongoloid act like they are devastated and retreat
>But do it in a slow manner which baited the enemy in pursuing.
>Extend enemy far enough to send light archer cavlary
>Do constantly harass the enemy
>Exhaustion and causalities finally breaks them
>Mongol send rest of army to wipe them out
Every fucking time.
>>1056672
>Humphrey Barwick, Roger Williams, Robert Barret
All 17 century. Firearms were used in Europe since the late 14th century. I didn't bother to check the rest but it's clearly you who is confusing things.
>>1057209
>Firearms were used in Europe since the late 14th century
Not him, but they were mostly artillery support pieces then. Guns didn't become rank and file weapons used in a comparable way to bows and crossbows until the early 16th century, and all of those writers were writing from experience of the past century of warfare.
Put it this way: if the reason guns were adopted early and completely in Europe was because unlike China it lacked a huge pool of skilled archers, then that would be true also for the Turks who were also very skilled and very prolific archers. Yet the Ottomans were one of the earliest adopters of the firearm, and Anatolia which had some of the oldest traditions of skilled archery at the time was flooded with guns even for civilian use.
It's more likely the Chinese and other latecomers to the gun game were too poor for mass adoption of firearms, whether for civilian life or an organized deployment and drill by the government.
>>1057387
The Mamlukes in Egypt also used the early hand cannon against the Mongols and won, so it's unlikely any commander of the time who knew what a gun was would have preferred a lot of skilled archers to them. Don't forget Japan, an island which was all about archery and horse archery for centuries, became one of the most gun crazy places on Earth within decades of the Dutch selling them their first arquebus.
Pic related is some next level memeing
>>1056514
But I thought during the Hundred Year's War every English male from a young age was required by law to practice with the bow daily. Surely they had enough training to be slapped into some gear and taught basic military disciplines. Then again England practically DID spam archers during that war.
>>1057209
>All 17 century.
No, 16th century. Specifically the 1580s-1590's, when the bow was being replaced in the English military.
Why would I be talking about guns from the 1300's when guns didn't replace bows until 200 years later?
Arrows are limited
Arrows rarely change the course of battle
Arrows are to be used in support of infantry
*raises shield* *fights in range of your own infantry*
Nothing personal... kid
>>1057387
The Chinese were anything but poor and the reason why they didn't adopt firearms in mass is complicated. Since the Mongol Yuan dynasty composite bows became the range weapon of choice, and despite having crossbows began to produce them less and less. When firearm technology was developed in China, the gun began to replace the declining crossbow but not the composite bow and was only used in the south, the reason being that their guns were of such poor quality that the barrels would warp after 3 shots and needed to be water cooled to prevent this from happening, which was much easier to do in the hot tropical southern regions than the dry arid Northern areas.
So in China you see the gun and the bow used in conjunction according to their environments.
>>1056735
They almost ran out of feathers.
During the 100 years war there wasn't a goose in England with feathers.
>>1058289
Composite bows had superior rate of fire and more range compared to firearms. Individual skill didn't matter too much for Chinese archers due to mass fire tactics using heavy shot, fired at an arc and relying on gravity for armor piercing capabilities, meaning that armor wasn't a huge concern either.
>>1056499
Fixed fortifications. Getting fucking trounced by heavy cavalry.
>>1056597
Legnica wasn't all heavy cavalry. And the fact that the mongols sustained heavy casualties in both Mohi (which they almost lost) and Legnica shows that tactics in tandem with technology is what really wins. Also, the Crusades beg otherwise, where mail was perfectly adequate at stopping arrows.
>>1056514
>and get similiar -- though substandard -- results.
completely wrong. The crossbowmen of french armies in the hundred years war were pathetic. They got annihilated in every engagement
>>1056499
>What stopped medieval armies from spamming archers?
They were superseded by gunpowder units. Pretty fucking simple
The english longbowman in civ 5 is fucking unreal. I easily choose them over chu ko nu
>>1058765
In Europe, manpower was the problem facing armies. In Asia, manpower was not the problem and therefore adopting firearms would be using a more expensive weapon when the advantage of such a weapon (cheap training) cannot be used effectively as soldiers were much more replaceable in Asia.
>>1058829
But literally everyone in Asia except China humped the gun from an early age. The Safavids, the Mughals, the Japanese, etc.
>>1058839
In states where armies are decentralized, like in Japan, raising enough effective fighting men was the biggest restriction so firearms made sense. In states where the army is centralized like in China, firearms didn't make much sense because of the manpower is not the restriction, but the expenses the state treasury can take. Since firearms were much more expensive than bows, they didn't make much sense.
A similar example would be the Byzantine empire before the Theme system. Since the army was centralized under the emperor before then, the treasury was the limit to the size of the army and when the treasury started to run low due to a variety of reasons, the army size was small compared to Western European armies and Arab armies with the same population because the state couldn't maintain the army size due to treasury limits. This was also why the armies were decentralized during the Medieval times; the treasury cannot keep up with the manpower.
>>1056499
that's how mongols and turks invaded - lots and lots of horse archers. arrow from composite bow can penetrate most medieval steel armor plates.
>>1058867
>arrow from composite bow can penetrate most medieval steel armor plates.
proofs
>>1058861
The Ottomans weren't any different and had a centralized state army with lots and lots of guns. None of this would have also stopped civilians and private soldiers and mercenaries from acquiring firearms like they did everywhere else.
>>1056957
>Slav builds bunkers
Same story every time.
>>1056992
Didn't that work for them a few times?
>>1056575
>mongol marpat
>>1058877
My guess is that the Ottoman army had to face enemies with heavy armor where bows had trouble penetrating and the terrain in the Balkans where they would have been most likely to wage war did not allow for large maneuvers, forcing armies to clash at specific locations where the armor penetration was beneficial and the lack of mobility of early firearms formations was not of large consequence. The other part was still likely due to the lack of effective fighting men considering their diverse multi-ethnic empire which mostly resented the Turkish government in Anatolia, greatly limiting the effective manpower pool.
>>1058873
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15454&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=380
>>1057029
>Outnumbers the defenders by a huge margin
>Has war elephants
>Has trolls
>Has an immortal witch king on his side
>LOSES TO CAVALRY AND GHOSTS
Is Gothmog the worst commander ever?
>>1056499
Longbows aren't as effective against armor as you think. They're shit against cavalry without the support of heavy infantry/.
>>1056556
No, they weren't. Welshmen were valued for their skill with spears at the time.
>>1056597
Except no, you cum guzzling fucktard.
THe mongols barely won that battle against a divise and p[oorly lead foe, and were reliant on fucking seige weaponry and close combat.
Arrows did jack shit to the poles.
Fuck, every account of dorylaeum makes it clear that the men in chain were ale to stand up to point blank arrow shots for fucking HOURS.
Anna kommenous writes the same of franks being shot at with composite bows-they did not care. At all.
>>1058928
>linking another forum with probably the worst proof you could find
Assert yourself and try harder
>>1059055
Correction: I"m thinking of mohi.
Leginca is a simple case of the poles using poor tactics.
Fucking nothing about it has anything to do with the effectiveness of arrows against armor.
>>1059060
*shrugs* read or not read, up to you.
>>1056798
>the best bows still cost about a tenth of what a musket did
the best bows need the best bowmen
>>1059073
>*shrugs*
>>>/reddit/
and why the hell would you base your assertions off a forum debate that was entirely indecisive and had only one, very poor piece of evidence posted on the matter?
>>1059069
You're still partially right, the poles at legnica used levy peasants.
Additionally, Mohi didn't even have the full support of the nobility since they were pissed at Bela for letting the Cumans in
>>1059099
Yeah. If the Poles and Hungarians actually had decent leadership, the first invasion likely would have failed entirely.
As is, they still took heavy casualties in every fight, yet retards circlejerk to MUH HORSE ARCHERS because of these battles.
I"ll never get it.
>>1059143
No the first invasion would have succeeded regardless. Europe hadn't encountered a force that organized, well lead and well trained since the Romans. If you read contemporary chronicles of the first invasion, Europeans were in complete awe at the speed and military maneuvers performed by the Mongols.
>>1058892
*hungarian
Although most turanic culture is ultimately derived from the same place as that of the Mongols.
They were considered weak and cowardly.
>>1058942
No, because he lives in a fantasy universe where cavalry charges into pike lines work wonders.
>>1057017
What made Japs abandon horse archery?
>>1059820
Increasing violence in the 1300's. The initial Japanese method of war which was a massive skirmish duel followed by single combat honour-duels/closing in gave way to Japanese armies opening up battles straight into melee.
>>1058942
In the books the battles are a lot closer and the good guys use actual non-suicidal tactics.
>>1059838
the complete slap in the face that was the mongol invasion where they were only just saved by the typhoon must have been a pretty big indication they were doing something wrong right? Or had they already started to transition away from Bow archer honor duels by then?
>>1060102
Nah. It was already moving away from the bullshit honor duels during the Gempei Wars.
Samurai were really getting more and more violent when the Imperial Central Government weakened and the military men grew in de facto power. Wars had more at stake rather than silly matters of personal honor.
>>1060118
it's fascinating how it almost seems that the ideal samurai bushido ideals and all that was how they originally were way back when the warfare was highly ritualized. Was that where they drew a lot of inspiration from during peacetime when writing about the perfect samurai code? Rather than take inspiration from a less distant past where they had actually fought for winning with guns and other tools to win at at any cost.
>>1059786
Maybe in your retarded RPG games.
>>1060135
Back then, prior to the mongol invasions, there were still a lot of treasons, assassinations, chronical backstabbing and such.
Let's take another example, battles in Ancient Greece was also highly ritualized and organized, do you think they didn't try anything they could to win though ? Sometimes, ritualizing a battle is a way to assure a dramatic and durable victory.
The bushido is an ideal, trying to put it on distant ancestors would be totally anachronic, even though some traits could be found back then.
![181541m3tby9p4y8qho3mo[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/UQN7ja7.jpg "181541m3tby9p4y8qho3mo[1].jpg")
>>1058861
>In states where the army is centralized like in China, firearms didn't make much sense because of the manpower is not the restriction, but the expenses the state treasury can take.
1. Firearms were adopted in Europe at a time when armies were becoming increasingly centralized.
2. The Ming used firearms heavily. Even the Qing, who weren't big fans of musketry, trained Chinese bannerman to use muskets and bows at a 1:1 ratio, and trained them on the same shooting ranges.
>>1056499
This is the Scythian debate reworded, it only works on the tabletop
>>1056499
Since ppl continually dropped the use of armor in the 1600s and onwards, could it not have been useful to in a surprise way bring back bowmen? I always imagined some north african warlord or something who goes full persia and just hurls a rain of arrows down upon the non armored, non shield wearing muskeeteers and getting away with it.
>>1060575
Not really. The Russians brought horse archer auxiliaries with them to fight Napoleon. From one French commander's account they were totally useless.
https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/02/27/baron-marbots-encounter-with-mounted-archers-at-dresden-and-liepzig-1813/
>>1060575
Why do that when most cavalry had pistols to fire close range and then sabre fuck you?
>>1059665
> succeed
It didn't. Mongols didn't conquer shit
>>1058888
Checked
>>1060596
I don't know why but that account was pretty funny.
>>1056499
>implying they didnt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDnKciXrmnc
>>1056545
>In real life, as compared to Total War games, archers aren't extremely effective.
Archers are shit in TW.
>>1058942
how do you kill a ghost though
>>1061618
You call Ghostbusters.
>>1061101
>MUH AGINCOURT
Where everyone fails to mention that the french knights got killed by melee weapons and not by arrows.
>>1061682
Without telephones? They didn't have those in the Middle Ages you dumbass
>>1058942
>immortal
>dies
>>1062081
Immortal does not mean indestructible Ares is a immortal god yet Diomedes hurt him.
the amount of time it takes to make a bow and then train somebody to use it on top of all the other military discipline compared to the time it takes to make a spear and train somebody to use it isn't a time positive margin
not to mention armies of that point in antiquity weren't some federally funded organization where the soldier is equipped and outfitted, it was just cheaper for men to arm themselves with shit-tier weapons in the time they had
>>1062106
But he really dropped the ball there, in being taken down by a halfling with a magical dagger and a woman.
>>1060596
>hose that do arrive have used up in their ascent the impulse given to them by the bow, and fall only under their own weight, which is very small, so that they do not as a rule inflict any serious injuries
How did these people wreck the shit out of knights covered in metal from head to toe in the middle ages?
>>1063097
The knights couldn't shoot back and their horses were almost always unarmored.
>>1056798
>No. English Yew didn't make good bows. The climate is too damp and the trees don't grow straight enough. The best bows were made from Swiss yew. Merchants were required to pay a tariff with imported bow staves.
He is right about the overharvesting of yew trees. In Saxony they restricted the cutting of yew trees and exporting the wood.
>>1056873
>you can't just pop a longbowman from a hut by spending x gold, y food, and z wood.
Challenge accepted.
>>1056888
Legionnaires were trained for multi-role capability, they were more than just heavy infantry. Also, Rome frequently made use of Auxiliaries as light infantry, skirmishers, and cavalry.
>>1063097
They didn't. Other heavily armored men did.
>>1058732
>this is what brits believe
Medieval warfare isn't all about major battles. For every battle, there was 10 sieges. The Hundred Years War was a collection of tiny sieges of the thousands of castles in France. In siege warfare, the crossbow is much more efficient than the bow, same in naval warfare, where England kept being rekt
>>1061750
This. The archers made a difference because they started going around in packs and shanking stragglers once the main forces had met. That's why Agincourt was such a big deal besides the army size disparity: the French nobility was horrified at the thought of being killed by a gang of peasants over a fellow nobleman.
>>1058886
Hungarians aren't slavs, dude.
>>1056499
It costs as much to manufacture 1 arrow as it does to manufacture 1 spear.
You need to be extremely buff to get significant force and range from a bow.
More training is needed than for melee weapons, and that training is more expensive.
(Losing and damaging practice arrows left and right.)
>What stopped medieval armies from spamming archers?
They tried, that's for sure.
Most blacksmiths paid their taxes in arrowheads.
>>1065053
>>1061750
Because the English relied so heavily on archers, they tended to be a lot better armed than the archers of other nations. An English bowman would also carry a sword and perhaps even have light armor of some kind because they were expected to take part in the melee, nto just to run away as archers typically do.
>>1064613
>It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to be an effective longbowman because there was no real need of great accuracy.
Not true at all. Learning to shoot a bow isn't particularly difficult, but accuracy absolutely mattered.
>However It took a considerable amount of strength too use them effectively.
And gaining this strength is part of the time it takes to master the bow, and why the best archers started practising as children. Compared with the crossbow, which is much simpler to fire and which requires no great strength to use it, longbowmen represent a far greater investment.
nothing, thats why everyone uses guns
>>1056499
Crossbows
>>1058903
>lack of effective fighting men considering their diverse multi-ethnic empire which mostly resented the Turkish government in Anatolia, greatly limiting the effective manpower pool.
not really, serious ethnic clashes didnt started until 19th century and Christians werent allowed in army in Ottomans anyway.
>>1056797
mongols had infanry and lancers etc...
they werent just exclusivly horse archers
>>1067024
>Christians werent allowed in army in Ottomans
What were janissaries?
Also what do you mean about serious ethnic clashes? There are plenty of wars that were about supressing ethnical or religious uprisings.
>>1067044
Jannisaries were converted. You seriously think Ottoman royal guard and police force was Christian?
>There are plenty of wars that were about supressing ethnical or religious uprisings
like which? i am ready to correct myself but i just cant seem to find plenty ethnic fueled uprisings before 19th century
>>1067082
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars
The annihilation of Melos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melos_and_the_Peloponnesian_War
>>1067104
Those are just two examples but you can literally find thousand examples like this scattered all over history.
Would say that colonialism in Africa constituted an ethnic conflict? Or the Indian wars?
>>1067104
I meant ethnic-fueled European/Christian uprisings Ottoman era before 19th century, ofc in 5000+ year old world history there would be ethnic fueled wars before 19th century
>>1066049
this, honestly.
most educated commment ITT
>>1066049
>It costs as much to manufacture 1 arrow as it does to manufacture 1 spear.
No it doesn't. It uses the same materials and less of it.
>More training is needed than for melee weapons, and that training is more expensive.
Are you fucking kidding me? No. More physical training, but this costs nothing-order men to shoot bows on sunday.
Cost? Jack shit.
>(Losing and damaging practice arrows left and right.)
Military archers either have fuckhuge area targets they all fire into, or, if they're English, shoot at markers ion an open field.
Unless they're lazy, everyone is going to deerwalk the field at the end of the session and collect the arrows.
I shot bows 4-8 hours a week fior years, I only lost a handful of arrows.
>>1066119
>some light armor
You could expect to see archers running around with anything from their bare ass to partial plate.
>>1068443
>It uses the same materials and less of it.
Same amount of iron, less wood.
Both of which have to be processed to lower tolerances, which means more effort to make.
>Are you fucking kidding me? No. More physical training, but
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Maybe you're just bad at communicating, but I interpreted this as "I disagree with your point, but as a partial concession I secede your entire point".
>this costs nothing-
It doesn't cost nothing. They work for pay.
>order men to shoot bows on sunday
Weekends are a fairly recent invention. Well, recent enough that they weren't around when bows were relevant.
>Cost? Jack shit.
Again, you pay them for their time.
And again, there is no extra time to squeeze out. You're already using /all/ of it.
Also of note, archers were expected to have melee training as well.
So even if training archery took almost no time (it doesn't) it would still take strictly more time to train an archer than it would another soldier.
Which means you have to spend more time paying them to train, which is time your paying them to not fight.
>I shot bows 4-8 hours a week for years, I only lost a handful of arrows.
Do it hours for days instead of weeks and it'll add up. But losing practice arrows is more of an after thought, damaging them is a far bigger concern.
Hobbyists these days use carbon or aluminium shafts, switch those for poorly processed wood and you'll break them constantly.
>>1060607
>Implying the Mongols goal heading Westward was conquest
More like you don't understand the political worldview of the Mongols
>>1068894
>political worldview
What a shitty scapegoat for a failed endeavor
>they didn't succeed
>nu uh they just didn't want to conquer them
>>1068899
Read a fucking book. The Mongol movement westward was basically one big fucking raid; they fucked up nations along the way, collected loot and told the defeated states that from now on they give tribute to the Khan then left. Funny thing is compared to other parts of the Old World, Europe was poor as fuck and the Mongols constantly complained about the lack of loot they collected from the Poles and Hungarians.
>>1069011
>The Mongol movement westward was basically one big fucking raid
Yes. That's why they brought siege equipment and multiple generals. Their whole plan was to raid. You need to read better books.
>Funny thing is compared to other parts of the Old World, Europe was poor as fuck
What a shitty meme. Also, the mongols didn't even touch the wealthy and main parts of Europe.
>constantly complained about the lack of loot they collected from the Poles and Hungarians
Yes, because the Poles and Hungarians would rather burn and bury their wealth than let it be taken.
Oh and they still didn't succeed. You're trying to twist the story which is hilarious, but stupid.
>>1069231
You don't know shit about shit and just pulling shit out of your ass to try and come up with a response.
>Yes. That's why they brought siege equipment and multiple generals. Their whole plan was to raid.
Having multiple commanders was common practice and the Mongols didn't lug around siege equipment, the traveled with engineers who constructed them when needed.
>What a shitty meme. Also, the mongols didn't even touch the wealthy and main parts of Europe.
>Europe
>Wealthy
>Kek
Words that don't go together
>Yes, because the Poles and Hungarians would rather burn and bury their wealth than let it be taken.
Yes because they were so busy running and dying that they had time to burn all their valuables.
And yes the Mongols did succeed in their foray into Europe and found that there was nothing there worth taking.
>>1069289
>Having multiple commanders was common practice and the Mongols didn't lug around siege equipment, the traveled with engineers who constructed them when needed.
What difference does it make? They put dedication into their invasion. Scapegoating with "just a raid" is exactly that, scapegoating.
>Words that don't go together
I presume you're just a butthurt minority?
>Yes because they were so busy running and dying that they had time to burn all their valuables.
Apparently the mongols couldn't even conquer dead men, who knew!
>And yes the Mongols did succeed in their foray
No. They didn't. By what degree did they succeed?
>found that there was nothing there worth taking
So, they didn't win? What was so valuable in dirt poor, divided Russia that they decided to annex them?
Daily reminder that the Mongols will never ever succeed in invading Europe.
>>1067024
>not really, serious ethnic clashes didnt started until 19th century and Christians werent allowed in army in Ottomans anyway.
About that, it wasn't until the late 17th century that this became a general rule. Some 30% of Ottoman cavalry until then were not only Christian, they flew Christian banners and fought directly with the Sultan in several battles.
>>1056499
Because you didn't spam anything before the creation of the modern professional or conscript army. You didn't prepare for war by calling up farmers, putting various weapons in their hands, then trained them for a month before shipping them off on an expedition like you did in Napoleonic times.
For archers you called up archers, as in trained shooters who already knew their weapon and didn't need to be trained. This meant you recruited the local foresters who made their peace time living hunting with bow and arrow, the farmers and craftsmen who drilled themselves with the bow as part of a militia, and any landed professionals or mercenaries who trained on their own time, maybe even through experience at war. Obviously there were a finite number of the above available, and even less you were willing and able to pay to support on campaign
>>1069390
Keep up with the mental gymnastics and moving the goal post, it makes you look more stupid every time you do it.
>So, they didn't win? What was so valuable in dirt poor, divided Russia that they decided to annex them?
Shows what you fucking know. Kievan Rus was a major crossroad for trade between Europe and Central Asia, and the Russian principalities were never annexed they were reduced to tributary and vassals states as was the common practice with the Mongols.
>Daily reminder that the Mongols will never ever succeed in invading Europe.
Repeating the same bullshit again and again doesn't make it true. The only modicum of truth is that they likely wouldn't have succeeded in invading further into Europe because most of the continent was underdeveloped, lacked arable and pasturable lands that the plains of Poland couldn't even support the large number of horses that the Mongols brought in during their incursion.
>>1068783
>Weekends are a fairly recent invention. Well, recent enough that they weren't around when bows were relevant.
Holy shit you absiolute retard.
>Everyone shoot sundays or else
THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE ENGLISH CROWN DID.
>Again, you pay them for their time.
EXCEPT THEY FUCKING DIDN'T.
>And again, there is no extra time to squeeze out. You're already using /all/ of it.
EXCEPT THATS FUCKING WRONG. YOU DO UNDERSTAND PEASANTS HAD FREE TIME, RIGHT?
You are fucking arguing against what LITERALLY happened being possible in favor of what you think is possible based on... nothing.
>muh skillz!
What do you think takesmore technical skill:
Learning the sword,k shield, spear, wrestling, grappling, and dagger fighting, with and without armor-or learning to bombard are targets on command, and basic sword and buckler, which the average person was likely already practicing for fun?
Archers being raised forthe kingdomor state were dirt fucking cheap because they trained themselves and required the leastinitial investment.
>but muh pay!!!!!!!!!oneoneone
Soldiers were virtually never paid on time. Initial cost to field them was what mattered, after that, yopu paid them enough otkeep them from revolting. Delays of months were common, even for mercenaries.
Even if they WERE paid on time-archers were paid less than other troops.
>>1056518
Hand forge 100 swords...wait
>>1069462
> Kievan Rus was a major crossroad for trade between Europe and Central Asia
Oh, but you just said that Europe was poor and lacked wealth. Surely such poor people would have no participation in trade or anything of the sort.
>most of the continent was underdeveloped, lacked arable and pasturable lands that the plains of Poland couldn't even support the large number of horses that the Mongols brought in during their incursion.
So, they couldn't and didn't conquer Europe? Okay, thanks for admitting that.
I have no idea why or how anyone could possibly claim the Mongols succeeded when they couldn't even capture the king they were coming for. You are truly an autist of insufferable measures.
>likely wouldn't have succeeded
Ah yes, the alt-history memeing. Sorry bud, they didn't go any further. Doesn't matter what they could have done or would have done, they didn't, and so, they never will.
>>1071649
>Oh, but you just said that Europe was poor and lacked wealth. Surely such poor people would have no participation in trade or anything of the sort.
In relative to the rest of the Old World, Europe was absolutely poor and my statement stands.
>I have no idea why or how anyone could possibly claim the Mongols succeeded when they couldn't even capture the king they were coming for. You are truly an autist of insufferable measures.
>Implying that wasn't just a convenient casus belli for their incursion into Europe
It's hilarious how you throw the word autist around when you yourself are incapable of understanding context.
>Ah yes, the alt-history memeing. Sorry bud, they didn't go any further. Doesn't matter what they could have done or would have done, they didn't, and so, they never will.
You say that as a point of pride but there's nothing to be proud about. Europe was such a dirt poor shit hole the Mongols didn't even think it was worth the manpower and effort to go any further into the continent. The Mongols actually acquired more loot devastating the lands of the Cumans than they did in Hungary and Poland, that speaks volumes when nomadic steppe tribes have more wealth than their settled neighbors.
>>1071111
What are you talking about? It's objectively more difficult to deliver an accurate hit with a long bow than to take a sword and stab it into something.
Archers required a lifetime's worth of training, which is the bow and arrow was ditched for muskets way before muskets produced anywhere near the same kind of damage (iirc, during the English civil war, the guns were so bad that some of the Parliamentary forces wanted to revert back to the longbow).
>>1073705
>In relative to the rest of the Old World, Europe was absolutely poor and my statement stands
You're a fucking retard.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/pdf/Broadberry/AccountingGreatDivergence5.pdf
>understanding context.
I understand context. Context doesn't make a loss into a victory. Autism and mental gymnastics does.
>a point of pride
I'm not even European.
>Europe was such a dirt poor shit hole the Mongols didn't even think it was worth the manpower and effort to go any further into the continent
Well, the mongols certainly were wrong. Unfortunately, they weren't able to get into the continent and actually see the truth. Boo hoo.
>acquired more loot devastating the lands of the Cumans than they did in Hungary and Poland
[citation needed]
You do realize your point in arguing is entirely moot, they didn't succeed. Why don't you understand this? Even if they left because Europe was "too poor" it makes no difference, they still didn't succeed.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/learn-signs
>>1073755
>http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/pdf/Broadberry/AccountingGreatDivergence5.pdf
Thank you for posting a source that's full of dubious statements and nitpicked facts that literally proves nothing.
>Well, the mongols certainly were wrong. Unfortunately, they weren't able to get into the continent and actually see the truth. Boo hoo.
They weren't wrong despite what you "think"
>I'm not even European.
No but you're of Western stock and like every neckbeard on this site you gravitate towards the accomplishments of Western societies as if they were somehow your own
>You do realize your point in arguing is entirely moot, they didn't succeed.
And what you don't seem to comprehend is the definition of success. The invasion of Poland and Hungary were meant to probe the continent to see if it was worth taking and it wasn't so in achieving that goal they succeeded, there's a reason why the Mongols afterwards made no major attempt at a second invasion and every incursion afterwards were nothing more than large raids often meant to punish the Pole and Hungarians for meddling in the affairs of their vassal and tributary states. If there was remotely any truth to the idea that Europe was wealthy, and the Mongols would have known about that because of their extensive spy-networks and diplomat corps, then why the fuck did the Mongols spend 60 years in a bloody conflict with the Chinese states and invested most of their manpower in an attempt to conquer the whole of China while spending no effort at all for a second major invasion of Europe? Because as the first invasion showed, Europe didn't matter.
>>1056555
Gunpowder shreed armor. That is why they prevailed.
>>1073939
Except it didn't. Gunpowder wasn't even reliably defeating munitions armor at medium range well into the 1600s.
It wasn't reliable at all when it was first introduced.
>>1073896
>there's a reason why the Mongols afterwards made no major attempt at a second invasion
But that's fucking wrong. Later invasions used just as many men literally every time, and got their fucking asses kicked more often than not.
>>1073964
No they didn't, the first invasion had a conservative estimate of 105,000 and 150,000 men. Virtually every raid afterwards numbered from around 30,000 to 40,000 men.
>>1073896
>full of dubious statements
It has citations
>nitpicked facts
Go ahead, counter them.
>that literally proves nothing
It shows GDP and compares them. Cross check Italy vs China in the 1200s.
>They weren't wrong despite what you "think"
>no u
Good argument.You're making the assertion, you back it.
>No but you're of Western stock and like every neckbeard on this site you gravitate towards the accomplishments of Western societies as if they were somehow your own
Ah, yes, minority butthurt and projection. Let me guess, you're 1/16th mongol and take pride in your ancestors accomplishments?
>The invasion of Poland and Hungary were meant to probe the continent to see if it was worth taking
Do you have any credible historians to back your assertion?
>no major attempt
So you call literally all of the expeditions into Europe "non-major?" Yet they tried twice against Poland? Wouldn't the first try have told them it wasn't worth it?
>would have
Now you're getting into plausibility.
>spend 60 years in a bloody conflict with the Chinese states
Maybe it's because they valued China more than Europe? No one doubted this. Or maybe it's because they failed in Europe.
>no effort at all for a second major invasion of Europe
In their third invasion of Poland, they brought more men than they had done in their second.
>as the first invasion showed, Europe didn't matter
Well then apparently the mongols have autism because they keep repeating the same action over and over again despite it not succeeding and apparently "not mattering."
>The invasion of Poland and Hungary were meant to probe the continent to see if it was worth taking and it wasn't so in achieving that goal they succeeded
Holy shit. The mental gymnastics here is incredible. Citations. Please. Because I'm not even going to gratify you with a second response if you're not going to back such an absurd and retarded statement. You basically said they succeeded in "reconnaissance." What happened to being pro spies?
>>1073971
You. Are. A. Retard.
Two or three tumens. Not fucking 100,000 men.
Try not reading centuries old propaganda form the losers trying to justify their defeats. Every single fucking modern estimate pegs the invasion forces at 340,000 men max.
Every. Single. One.
But please, you fucking fanboy. Go ahead, go back in time, and tell FUCKING BATU HIMSELF that he wasn't trying to invade Europe. No, he was just invading Hungary(again) after demanding 1/5th of the Hungarians army for his palnned attack on euorpe because... uh... it was a raid.
Yeah. Not a failed attempt to subjugate them so he could use their manpower to attack europe, despite him telling the hungarians a smuch.
And these FUCKING STEPPE NOMADS got invested with trying ot siege stoen fortresses, and suffered horrendous losses.
For a raid. When they all had horses and could bypass these places.
And in the first siege, they also brought fucking Chinese specialists and pre-constructed siege engines so they could... raid. And continued attacking the citade lof estergzom after having taken the whole town and taken allthe welath that wasn't burned for raiding purposes.
Go be a mongolaboo fuck somewhere else.
>>1073984
*30,000-40,000.
>>1073973
>It has citations
So? You literally know jack shit about academic papers. It's extremely easy to manipulate the facts and misrepresent ideas to support a thesis.
>Claims that Japan was more developed than China in 1600's
>Claims that China made no effort at long-ocean going trade after Zheng He's voyage despite centuries of evidence showing the contrary
>Uses GDP as sole indicator of economic health when any first year economics student will tell you that's flawed
This paper belongs in the trash and you should feel ashamed for even trying to present it as a source.
>Do you have any credible historians to back your assertion?
Timothy May, at least that's his claim. Other historians will say that real goal of the first invasion was to fuck up Poland and Hungary so Batu could secure the Western frontiers and their newly acquired Russian vassals
>So you call literally all of the expeditions into Europe "non-major?" Yet they tried twice against Poland? Wouldn't the first try have told them it wasn't worth it?
>In their third invasion of Poland, they brought more men than they had done in their second.
Do you even know the numbers they brought in the first invasion as opposed to the consequent raids they made afterwards? No you don't so check the facts.
>Holy shit. The mental gymnastics here is incredible. Citations. Please. Because I'm not even going to gratify you with a second response if you're not going to back such an absurd and retarded statement. You basically said they succeeded in "reconnaissance." What happened to being pro spies?
The mental gymnastics falls on your head not mine. What are you struggling to understand about the concept of goals? How do you fail to comprehend the idea that military operations don't always have the goal of conquering new territories.
>>1071348
A sword isn't a one use item.
>>1073984
>Try not reading centuries old propaganda form the losers trying to justify their defeats. Every single fucking modern estimate pegs the invasion forces at 340,000 men max.
Please give me a source for these numbers which you are clearly pulling out of your ass. Because here's mine http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh381/Sinor_Mongols_Hungary.htm
>And these FUCKING STEPPE NOMADS got invested with trying ot siege stoen fortresses, and suffered horrendous losses.
Yes and completely ignoring that fact that most of these fortresses fell quickly to the Mongols.
>Yeah. Not a failed attempt to subjugate them so he could use their manpower to attack europe, despite him telling the hungarians a smuch.
If you actually knew anything about Batu's operations in Hungary you can easily come to that conclusion. After decisively crushing the Hungarian army instead of pursuing Bela all the way to Austria he spread his forces and contented to raid and pillage before withdrawing.
>And in the first siege, they also brought fucking Chinese specialists and pre-constructed siege engines so they could... raid.
Here's to you not comprehending military operations or the context in which societies exist and how it affects their worldviews. At this point you should just bash your head against the wall so you can forget literacy because reading and writing is clearly a handicap for you.
>>1074060
Hmm the thing is that the paper is not wrong about the gdp nor can anyone claim that europe wasn't economically dynamic in this era with its city leagues, guilds, empowered merchant class etc.
You can say a paper is not as good and proper as it should be but this doesn't allow you to simply dismiss its conclusion, especially if it has provided arguments and figures to support itself
>>1074477
>Hmm the thing is that the paper is not wrong about the gdp
GDP is deceptive because a nation can have a high GDP yet produce nothing of value or wealth generating activities, you would know this if you've ever taken an intro economics class. That's why very little weight is given to the metric by itself when assessing economic development and health.
>nor can anyone claim that europe wasn't economically dynamic in this era with its city leagues, guilds, empowered merchant class etc
So what? You're saying that as if those are all unique or special to Europe. Adam Smith points out that both China and India in his time had far more sophisticated economies and markets than Europe. In fact Europe wouldn't produce an equivalent level of wealth until the mid 18th century.
>>1071111 What an absolute waste of quads.
>Archers being raised forthe kingdomor state were dirt fucking cheap because they trained themselves and required the leastinitial investment.
>YOU DO UNDERSTAND PEASANTS HAD FREE TIME, RIGHT?
I was referring to soldiers being trained as longbowmen. What you're describing is how they rounded up shit tier hunting bow militia archers.
The archers who could use hunting bows, but usually weren't strong enough to draw longbows. By extension, the archers with no longbow experience.
Reread >>1056499, this is a discussion of the bows that were actually useful (longbowslongbowslongbows).
>Even if they WERE paid on time-archers were paid less than other troops.
Militia nobodies were paid less than actual soldiers. Trained longbowmen were on the higher end of the (admittedly small) pay grade.
But again, archers take longer to train. Even if they were paid less (which they weren't) they would still be more expensive to train (but not to field).
>Everyone shoot sundays or else
>THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE ENGLISH CROWN DID.
No they did not. Peasents were expected by law to own bows and know how to use them. This was enforced.
They were briefly expected to train, but this was never enforced and got purged in short order with a bunch of obsolete laws.
>Learning the sword,k shield, spear, wrestling, grappling, and dagger fighting, with and without armor-or learning to bombard are targets on command, and basic sword and buckler, which the average person was likely already practicing for fun?
Melee fighters didn't receive very extensive training. But disregarding that archers had the same training on top of archery training (which they did), archery training took longer and involved more and more expensive equipment.
(2274/2000)
>>1071111 (cont.)
>CAPS LOCK FOR DAYS
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!oneoneone
Pic related.
>Holy shit you absiolute retard.
We've had days of the week (including saturady and sunday) for a very long time.
Weekends are fairly new. In the time period we're talking about you had 60 holidays sacttered randomly throughout your year.
>It uses the same materials and less of it.
>Are you fucking kidding me? No. More physical training, but
>I shot bows 4-8 hours a week for years, I only lost a handful of arrows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_(policy_debate)
>>1074093
Jesus Christ. You can't even tell the different invasions apart:
Here's a secret:
The first invasion fucking failed, because the mongols didn't get their man, being turned away because bigger, better armies were in their path.
The second invasion failed miserably, because it was an attempt at subjugatiung hungary prior to an all out invasion westwards.
>fortresses fell quickly
The mongols did not take a single stone castle in hungary.
>After decisively crushing the Hungarian army instead of pursuing Bela all the way to Austria he spread his forces and contented to raid and pillage before withdrawing.
After issuing a fucking ultimatum for the Germans to surrender, being told no, and the realizing the German nobles-all of them- were assembling into a fucking massive army that they didn't want to deal with, especially given the heavy losses they'd suffered at this point.
And there's the matter of multiple warnings coming to the west of mongols intending to conquer them all, mongol prisoners stating the same,and, again, batu himself making this desire completely clear.
And, of course, it is normal that raiding forces spend time minting new coins in a place they don't intend to occupy-along with dying in front of stone citadels when they've already captured the city and killed everyone in it, and are well aware everything of worth has been buried or burned.
But they failed, and mongols can't fail, so it was a raid all along. Not an attempt at outright conquest, nor an attempt to kill a king who escaped that then turned into a raid when the opportunity arose.
It was planned that way, as were the outright defeats to follow, all along. All the signs pointing to an attempt at conquest are false.
Mongol strong.
>>1069289
>the Mongols didn't lug around siege equipment, the traveled with engineers who constructed them when needed.
Pretty sure they usually kept the fittings for the siege equipment.
Otherwise, you've described everyone everywhere.
>>1079339
Pre built gear was also routinely transported dissembled and put together for use.
>>1077224
Well then these factors are seen as direct causes for the Great Divergence. But you still dismissed them providing nothing to disprove the paper while making unsourced claims, in fact you still dismissed the paper without backing yourself up with sources. Come back with sources that prove the paper wrong then I'll believe you
>>1079503
m8, just do what I did and don't bother replying. I never even entered the conversation, but just observing his ass is unbearable. He can't even bother to keep his point straight and he dismisses a paper which was cited for GDP because of tertiary information. Then, he calls Europe dirt poor despite the GDP comparison proving it wrong, and starts to ramble about "economic health." He's an idiot under the guise of intellectualism because he says "basic course" and "you would know this," implying he's received even a basic education when it's apparent he hasn't. Remember, trade routes to Europe are important, but the people we are actually trading with and making contact with are irrelevant.
>>1066139
>>It doesn't take a whole lot of skill to be an effective longbowman because there was no real need of great accuracy.
>Not true at all. Learning to shoot a bow isn't particularly difficult, but accuracy absolutely mattered.
Even a little kid can be trained to accurately shoot a bow within a weekend but accurately shooting an _70-80 lb draw weight_ bow capable of defeating armor, takes strength and practice.
>>1079203
>The first invasion fucking failed, because the mongols didn't get their man, being turned away because bigger, better armies were in their path.
What don't you comprehend about the concept of a casus belli?
>The second invasion failed miserably, because it was an attempt at subjugatiung hungary prior to an all out invasion westwards.
In what fucking universe is this true? Firstly this invasion was carried out by the Golden Horde after the Mongol Empire fragmented into different political entities. Secondly all prior behavior by the Golden Horde show no indication that this was the case.
>After issuing a fucking ultimatum for the Germans to surrender, being told no, and the realizing the German nobles-all of them- were assembling into a fucking massive army that they didn't want to deal with, especially given the heavy losses they'd suffered at this point.
A dozen knights is not a "massive army". Most of the German lords were in Italy with Frederick II, fighting the Lombards and the Pope. By the time Frederick II and the Pope signed a truce to deal with the Mongol menace, the Mongols had already left.
>And, of course, it is normal that raiding forces spend time minting new coins in a place they don't intend to occupy-along with dying in front of stone citadels when they've already captured the city and killed everyone in it, and are well aware everything of worth has been buried or burned.
Again that's you failing to comprehend Mongolian worldview. It actually was common practice amongst the Mongols to mint coins in warzones and ravaged territories, they did the exact same shit when they invaded Bulgaria.
>All the signs pointing to an attempt at conquest are false.
And virtually every single historian will agree with this fact.
>>1079503
There are many factors that have been cited as the cause of the Great Divergence but as Victor Lieberman points out in "Transcending East-West Dichotomies: State and Culture Formation in Six Ostensibly Different Areas" the real reason might be incredibly complex and poorly understood that economic metrics are insufficient to tell the whole story.
I can also pull out any introductory economics book and show you the pros and cons of GDP, and how it should and shouldn't be used to interpret data. You don't have to be a chef to know when food is shit, just like how I'm not going to right an essay to show the flaws in that paper when I have nothing to gain.
>>1060596
>https://bowvsmusket.com/2015/02/27/baron-marbots-encounter-with-mounted-archers-at-dresden-and-liepzig-1813/
Reading over this, it became clear that these battles were won, not by firearms, but by calvary with lances and sabres, which, apparently, the tatars and bashkirs didn't think to bring.
Which is weird. We're known for our sabres too.
>>1056499
>Mongols won their battles with cav and infantry just like everybody else.
>Longbows also didn't win battles.
Archers are a boon but do little damage to infantry. The Achaemenids used a lot of archers but as we all know it does not work against heavy infantry.
>>1080339
The westaboo you are arguing with doesn't understand mongol goals.
He doesn't understand mongols weren't interested in conquering, but rather trade.
If peace agreements had acceptable trade agreements, the mongols were happy and would move on.
They saw the pope as a head of a huge federal empire (they weren't wrong, Rome never really fell, just handed a ton of power over to the states at the time), and were perfectly happy to open the silk road to them and trade.
If you look through every single part of the Horde's military history, it was almost always because a city state or nation refused to become vassals and open trade.
>>1079572
You're nothing but a posturing faggot. If you actually knew anything about the economic development and state of the Old World then you would have already made a statement regarding the things said, instead you deffer authority to a paper you didn't even read because it cites numbers for a metric that you don't even understand.
Despite what you think Europe was dirt poor and no the trade routes to Europe were not important, they were minor arteries of the great Eurasian trade routes. Europe was according to Jack Goldstone "peripheral, conflict-ridden, and low-innovation society in world history until relatively late." Which actually explains why despite being poor has a high GDP.
>>1080427
That's not necessarily true, while yes trade was certainly important to the Mongols but so was conquest. The Mongols desired to conquer the world but they adopted the Chinese view of influence and expansion; if foreign rulers and states accepted the authority and suzerainty of the Khan, and paid proper tributes then it was the same as conquering them.
The Mongols were not a force of "good" by any means as a lot of revisionist historians like Jack Weatherford would portray them as such. They were a vicious and savage group of barbarians that caused irreparable damage to the regions they laid waste to but they had one of the most effective militaries in the world history.
>>1080465
>The Mongols desired to conquer the world but they adopted the Chinese view of influence and expansion
Honestly, this happened pretty early on.
I wouldn't portray them as a force of good. Nor would I describe them as barbarians. In many ways, they were no different than many of their contemporaries.
>>1078405
>I was referring to soldiers being trained as longbowmen. What you're describing is how they rounded up shit tier hunting bow militia archers.
What are you basing this on? You're completely wrong and it a lot like your only history knowledge comes from Total War and Lindybeige videos.
>Militia nobodies were paid less than actual soldiers. Trained longbowmen were on the higher end of the (admittedly small) pay grade.
In what time period?
>They were briefly expected to train, but this was never enforced and got purged in short order with a bunch of obsolete laws.
>this was never enforced
There are court records of people being fined for not shooting for periods as short as a month, two months, a quarter or a year. The fine for not shooting for a year is an outlier. Laws mandating the practice of archery were not only enforced, they were added to more and more even as the bow was replaced by firearms militarily even into the reign of Charles I.
>>1056586
>Wales is not a country
Jesus there are truly some retards on this board. Stop posting in future.
>>1080398
>You don't have to be a chef to know when food is shit, just like how I'm not going to right an essay to show the flaws in that paper when I have nothing to gain.
That analogy isn't actually fitting, this is more like a discussion about how the divergence happened with both sides having its own sources and arguments than a review and should be treated this way.
Your dismissal actually needs to be on the same standard(ie you need to have sources). As it stands the paper has more to back itself with than you have
If you can't then you can't dismiss it, that's all I'm saying
>>1080450
>posturing
I haven't even talked about myself once. I only posted on the original topic, which you seem hard pressed to derail. Now, I'm just here to call you an idiot for legitimately trying to argue that the mongols succeeded in Europe when they couldn't subjugate them or even catch Bela which was the main fucking reason they were in there.
>the economic development and state of the Old World
What the fuck? No one brought up the economic development of the Old World, the only reason that paper was included was because you seem to thing Europe was dirt poor. Pro-tip, they weren't. Iron, wine, precious metals, and clothes/fabrics were all exported. You seem to conflate a lack of extensive trade and connection globally as being "dirt poor," a testament only to your ignorance. The Hanseatic league, which had it's roots in the 13th century, should be enough to shut you up. But no, Europe was dirt poor. Once again why the mongols established trade with them, because they were poor. The economic rise in the 15th century which led the Renaissance? Yeah that money just came out of nowhere. The economy just suddenly grew out of the soil.
>deffer authority to a paper you didn't even read because it cites numbers for a metric that you don't even understand
It has real GDP comparisons for the period. That's the only reason he posted it was to contest your point that Europe was "dirt poor." But rather you go into an autistic rage over nuanced details and the fact that GDP isn't a perfect measurement. No shit it isn't perfect, but in this situation it proves a point. I'm waiting for you to post proof that Europe was "dirt poor"
>Jack Goldstone
He's not even a historian, he's an American sociologist. Find someone who actually knows their shit. Read Le Goff, he goes into extreme detail on the economy.
>low-innovation
That's a fucking giggle.
You're insufferable, I can understand why the other guy quit.
>>1083491
>What the fuck? No one brought up the economic development of the Old World, the only reason that paper was included was because you seem to thing Europe was dirt poor. Pro-tip, they weren't. Iron, wine, precious metals, and clothes/fabrics were all exported. You seem to conflate a lack of extensive trade and connection globally as being "dirt poor," a testament only to your ignorance. The Hanseatic league, which had it's roots in the 13th century, should be enough to shut you up.
Of course Europe was dirt poor in relative to the rest of the Old World and that's a fact, how do you struggle with the simple concept of value? All those economic developments that were occurring in Europe during the Middle Ages were nothing unique, virtually every single region in the Old World developed along the same path at a much earlier time, and do you know why that's the case? Because civilization sprung forth from Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and the Yellow River Basin while Europe was a primitive backwater, and therefore the civilizations around those areas had time to develop their infrastructure, social structure and economies while Europe was playing catch-up. Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" explicitly states that even in his time China and India were richer than any region in Europe.
>Once again why the mongols established trade with them, because they were poor.
Acquiring as many trade routes no matter how small was standard practice for virtually every single nation. Even the Chinese conducted small trade with Aborigines living off the Australian coast.
>The economic rise in the 15th century which led the Renaissance? Yeah that money just came out of nowhere. The economy just suddenly grew out of the soil.
Even a kid on training wheels learns how to ride a bike.
>>1083491
>He's not even a historian, he's an American sociologist.
And yet he's written works on economic history which makes him more qualified to speak on it than either of us
>That's a fucking giggle.
Point to me a European innovation before the 19th century that didn't already exist decades or centuries before in other parts of the Old World.
>>1083918
>that's a fact
Real good sources there.
>were nothing unique
Does it have to be unique?
>Europe was playing catch-up
You do realize Rome had already surpassed most everyone and was easily on par with China in all of those categories? Stay coherent, we're talking about the post-roman, medieval period.
> China and India were richer than any region in Europe
You're a dense one, aren't you? This isn't a comparison of China and Europe, it was never even about that. It's you being an idiot for claiming Europe was dirt poor, again, still wrong and still without evidence. Adam Smith is irrelevant in the discussion, 18th century historians are shit and he offers no insight.
>as many trade routes
The Silk Roads were easily the biggest and primary overland routes. Guess where they went?
>Even a kid on training wheels learns how to ride a bike
Terrible analogy.
>>1083927
>he's written works on economic history
He's neither credible nor well versed in European history to speak on the matter, much less than actual historians like Le Goff or Runciman.
> before the 19th century
Telescope
Piano
Hour Glass
Eyeglasses
Modern maritime compass, not that lodestone crap
Flying Buttress
Breech loading cannon
Divers Suit
>>1058942
The ghosts did 95 percent of the work.
There was literally nothing he could do to prevent it unless you know of some special ghost preventing armor.
>>1080916
This guy doesn't even understand the concept that the crown didn't pay for the training of feudal soldiers and mercenaries.
Or the idea that peasantry didn't work 7 days a week.
Or that their workload varied depending on time of year.
Don't bother.
>>1083993
>Does it have to be unique?
You're touting it as unique so I'm stating that you're wrong.
>You do realize Rome had already surpassed most everyone and was easily on par with China in all of those categories? Stay coherent, we're talking about the post-roman, medieval period.
Rome was an aberration on the continent and their achievements compared to the rest of the civilizations of Old World are greatly exaggerated due to the extensive well preserved records they left behind and Western academia wanking over them. WE WUZ ROMANZ IN SHITZ.
>You're a dense one, aren't you? This isn't a comparison of China and Europe, it was never even about that. It's you being an idiot for claiming Europe was dirt poor, again, still wrong and still without evidence. Adam Smith is irrelevant in the discussion, 18th century historians are shit and he offers no insight.
So you're basically burying your head in the sand and ignoring Smith because his writings don't agree with your world view. Good to know that I'm talking to a fucking moron. Yes the comparison between Asia and Europe are completely relevant despite your clumsy attempts to dismiss them; how do you compare relative wealth? By comparing one group to their neighbors. If Europe wasn't poor as fuck then why were they so desperate to enter the Eurasian market? You have absolutely no evidence to prove that Europe wasn't poor except for a flimsy poorly written paper that relies on a flawed metric.
>The Silk Roads were easily the biggest and primary overland routes. Guess where they went?
Central Asia, with minor arteries to Europe. The Silk Road wasn't even the major route in the Old World, it's the one touted by European meme history because it was the most important to the continent. The richest trade route was always the Indian Ocean trade route, even the Ottomans who controlled the flow of goods to Europe from the land route realized this and had numerous trade posts going as far as Java.
>>1084377
>You're touting it as unique so I'm stating that you're wrong
>europe is dirt poor
>no they aren't, look trade goods and economic development
>well, it wasn't unique!
You made the first assertion, now you're trying to shift it to me, great.
>aberration
Still existed. Still proves you wrong.
>greatly exaggerated
wew lad, I know the west makes you butthurt, but even China respected Rome.
> WE WUZ ROMANZ IN SHITZ
As opposed to "WE WUZ CONQUERORS 'N SHIET?"
> ignoring Smith because his writings don't agree with your world view
No, because writings about his time period do not tell me about the basic economy of the medieval period. Hmm, it's only a 400 years difference from the century at focus.
>how do you compare relative wealth
Why do you not understand this? We're not comparing wealth, we're telling you Europe wasn't dirt poor, an assertion you make off 18th century writings apparently.
>why were they so desperate to enter the Eurasian market
Because it has foreign shit that they liked, not because they were poor.
>no evidence
I literally listed things they traded and things which directly contest your point, but that big league up in the north which gained its profits from trade and built those large cathedrals? Nah, they were poor!
>poorly written paper
he's written works on economic history which makes him more qualified to speak on it than either of us
>flawed metric
Both GDP and real GDP are still used by economists and it's the foremost measurement of economic health.
So tell me, was the mongol invasion of Japan a success?
>>1085259
>You made the first assertion, now you're trying to shift it to me, great.
Something that I've been repeating over and over again which you will continue to ignore because it completely goes against your world view.
>wew lad, I know the west makes you butthurt, but even China respected Rome.
The Chinese had no contact with Rome, everything they knew was from rumors and third hand accounts.
>No, because writings about his time period do not tell me about the basic economy of the medieval period. Hmm, it's only a 400 years difference from the century at focus.
>Why do you not understand this? We're not comparing wealth, we're telling you Europe wasn't dirt poor, an assertion you make off 18th century writings apparently.
By that logic Broadberry, Runciman, and Le Goff have no right to speak of the economic conditions of Europe during the Middle Ages because they've never lived in those times. Smith's writing reflected the general attitude of Europe when comparing Europe's wealth with the rest of the Old World, as did Leibniz and Du Halde. If you really want an accurate portrait of those times Ibn Kaldun wrote that despite the Christian merchants having comparable wealth with their own Muslim merchants in Maghreb, their wealth paled in comparison to those in non-Arab Iraq, India and China.
>Because it has foreign shit that they liked, not because they were poor.
And yet no one was clamoring to get into the European market
>I literally listed things they traded and things which directly contest your point, but that big league up in the north which gained its profits from trade and built those large cathedrals? Nah, they were poor!
Even ghettos have economies but their still ghettos so the point is moot. If you think trading in some crude iron goods, wines and fabrics compares to trading in ivory, silk and spices then your delusional.
>>1087187
>because it completely goes against your world view
Nah, because you haven't managed to back it even once, relying on 18th century economists talking about their times, which apparently is reflective of 400 years in the past. That and a little quote by an American sociologist with no education in history.
>rumors and third hand accounts
Yet they still respected them. Guess rome must have been some tough shit if they rumors were enough to impress people on the other side of the planet. But no, they're clearly just exaggerations. Yep, no vestige of truth there.
>By that logic Broadberry, Runciman, and Le Goff have no right to speak of the economic conditions of Europe during the Middle Ages because they've never lived in those times
You can't even stay consistent with the argument. You cited Adam Smith's comment on his time period as proof that Europe was poor 400 years ago. Smith even mentions the profits of the Italian city-states and the profits made from the weavers of Flanders. And all those who you listed are credible and respected historians who have studied and put plenty of time into their research. Yes, I would trust them over Smith.
>no one was clamoring to get into the European market
Does that make a difference?
>Even ghettos have economies but their still ghettos so the point is moot
Analogies are not your strong point. Ghettos are ghettos because they have poor infrastructure and are seldom maintained, plus they have uncaring people. Europe was far from a ghetto and comparing a socio-economic blight to an entire continent is laughably stupid.
>crude iron goods, wines and fabrics compares to trading in ivory, silk and spices then your delusional
Money is money.
>>1088219
>Nah, because you haven't managed to back it even once, relying on 18th century economists talking about their times, which apparently is reflective of 400 years in the past. That and a little quote by an American sociologist with no education in history.
I've backed it up plenty of times you deliberately choose to ignore the information presented to you because it triggers you to know that Post-Roman Europe was a primitive backwater. Smith, Leibniz, Du Halde and other writers around that time were in awe of the wealth of the Orient despite Europe having extensive trade routes globally, if that were the case then one can easily make the deduction that in the Middle Ages Europe was poorer than most of its neighbors. Ibn Kaldun alludes to this and other medieval chroniclers like Jordanus and Odoric have written about the wealth of Central Asia and the East compared to Europe. If there's remotely any truth to the idea that Europe had wealth comparable then certainly no one noticed.
>et they still respected them. Guess rome must have been some tough shit if they rumors were enough to impress people on the other side of the planet. But no, they're clearly just exaggerations. Yep, no vestige of truth there.
You'd be surprised at the exaggerations the Romans had for India and China. The Romans thought they had flying machines and automatons.
>You can't even stay consistent with the argument.
I'm perfectly consistent, you seem to have trouble catching up. If you dismiss Smith then I can easily dismiss any of your authors. None of them lived in those times and they have no right to speak of the era because they never experienced it first hand as they base their writings only on records.
>Does that make a difference?
Makes all the difference it shows that there was nothing in Europe that the Eurasian market couldn't find elsewhere.
>>1088219
>Analogies are not your strong point. Ghettos are ghettos because they have poor infrastructure and are seldom maintained, plus they have uncaring people. Europe was far from a ghetto and comparing a socio-economic blight to an entire continent is laughably stupid.
I'm actually great with analogies but your straw man aside the point is that any region will have an economy and have some trade leagues is nothing special, as you continue to advance that idea as if you've somehow made a point.
>>1088893
>I've backed it up plenty of times
>Adam Smith
>cites his commentary about in the 18th century, ignores where he mentions the profits and riches being made in Italy and Flanders
>Jack Goldstone
>an American sociologist with no education in history
>the mongols commentary in the poorest part of Europe
Good evidence.
>around that time
That time is not the time we're talking about, stop redirecting.
>deduction
Lmao, you think the views of a few well respected authors is enough to judge an entire era and the era before that? Because people are never susceptible to bias, misinformation, or hype?
>poorer
Ah, so you're changing the point now. I never argued that Europe was richer than anyone else, I know they were poorer, but being poor compared to the richest people on the planet does not make you "dirt poor." Comparative measurements are shit and give false leads; you just complained about GDP presenting false conclusions
>If you dismiss Smith then I can easily dismiss any of your authors
>literally no u
>not even considering the points being made
>not even understanding why I'm dismissing Smith
You truly are special. I'll reiterate, I'm not dismissing Smith because of the era, I'm dismissing your claim which uses Smith's commentary about the economy of his time as a credible point to Europe in the middle ages being "dirt poor."
>nothing in Europe that the Eurasian market couldn't find elsewhere
Again, does that make a difference? They still bought them and trade still occurred.
>>1088899
>I'm actually great with analogies
>compares ghettos to an entire continent
>compares the deliberate action of learning to ride a bike with a 500 year period of economic development and change.
>trade leagues is nothing special
Not about the leagues, it's about the profits which are easily visible through Gothic architecture.
>>1089112
>Good evidence.
They are good evidence along with the works of authors you deliberately chose to ignore.
>Lmao, you think the views of a few well respected authors is enough to judge an entire era and the era before that? Because people are never susceptible to bias, misinformation, or hype?
I can easily dismiss all of the authors you've mentioned on the same grounds. As the California school points out modern Western academia thinks that only the world is Europe, this couldn't be more evident with Broadberry's passing observation of China and Japan, and any works written about history, especially economic history, has to be treated with a healthy amount of skepticism.
>Ah, so you're changing the point now.
I've never changed my point, that's always been my point you're just forced to acknowledge it now because you've boxed yourself in.
>I'm dismissing your claim which uses Smith's commentary about the economy of his time as a credible point to Europe in the middle ages being "dirt poor."
I've already answered this which again you've ignored.
>Again, does that make a difference? They still bought them and trade still occurred.
>Not about the leagues, it's about the profits which are easily visible through Gothic architecture.
Could you deflect any harder. All those are irrelevant information.
The English warbow was a hugely influential weapon but there is some legitimate evidence to suggest that it wasn't as effective in combat as people think. Or at least, it may not have been effective in the way people think it was.
There have been multiple modern tests done to see how effective a warbow was at penetrating plate and mail armor. Even at the highest estimated draw weights and at the closest range, in many of the tests the arrows proved to be relatively ineffective, with broadheads and bodkins on even lightly armored targets. There are also numerous first hand accounts from battles like Agincourt that claim that the English arrow barrages caused very few casualties.
The value of the English longbow may not have been in it's ability to kill or injure but to force the opposing men at arms to attack with visors down and usually wearing their heaviest, most protective armor and to advance on foot, since horses were vulnerable to arrows, which would then put them at a disadvantage against the English men-at-arms who could wear lighter armor, fight visors up (since the longbow had a range advantage against all other bows and crossbows) and would not be tired from having to approach the enemy.
It also made it more difficult to utilize lightly armored troops and cavalry, as both were vulnerable to arrow volleys.
It's doubtful English archers were able to kill armored men-at-arms en masse, as it is sometimes pictured in movies and history books. More likely, their value was derived from the strategic ramifications of their presence on a battlefield. An enemy facing thousands of English archers would have much fewer strategic options and would have to be very careful or risk having his cavalry or light troops destroyed very quickly.
>>1087187
>>Because it has foreign shit that they liked, not because they were poor.
>And yet no one was clamoring to get into the European market
I'm going to point something out, the reason why european powers expanded into asia is because of some factors rather specific to europe: 1) the countries that initially expanded were mercantilist(viewing trade as a zero sum game and wanting to only sell not buy) and 2) there wasn't much room in europe for expansion, and because of natural boundaries and mulltiple strong states expansion was very difficult. This is widely known.
also
>>wew lad, I know the west makes you butthurt, but even China respected Rome.
>The Chinese had no contact with Rome, everything they knew was from rumors and third hand accounts.
this shows you are digging yourself into a hole because saying rome wasn't impressive compared to asian states is simply denial of facts, in fact you have been cornered into being defensive about certain points in your argument rather than sticking to the point, which is not a good sign.
Anyway here's some proof of rome's incredible wealth and power:
rome was the largest pre-industrial producer of metals ever, producing 82,500 t of iron yearly(which is a conservative estimate) with Han China only producing 5000 t
this is consistent with other metals
see this page https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Comparison_between_Roman_and_Han_Empires
oh and yes, there are multiple other sources that confirm this, so you can't say dismiss this because you don't like the source
Production was so high that it has been called proto-industrial, like in this paper http://artefacts.mom.fr/Publis/Dark_2001_[Proto_Industrialization].pdf
this paper has been cited at least 6 times
>>1090034
Different anon,I wouldn't take the iron production estimates seriously.
The Roman estimate extrapolates data from an iron exporting region.
The inputted values of the Han estimate are highly suspect and contradicted by archaeological evidence.
http://historum.com/general-history/76471-why-europe-s-historical-heritage-so-much-more-impressive-36.html
Dude, do you even play Total War.
You're gonna get fucking stomped by cav.
>>1090168
>forum post
neverminding that this still doesn't indicate that Han production was anywhere close to Roman production, especially with the ban on private ironworks in Han China
Roman production was seemingly so high that it "caused the oldest large-scale hemispheric pollution ever reported" evidenced by traces of it in Greenland ice
>>1090207
The Roman estimate uses a different methodology than Needham/Wagners' Han estimate.
>As said before, even the high estimate of 80,000 tonnes of iron per year for the Roman empire is based on an unfounded assumption of 1.5 kg/capita, based on nothing more than that Roman iron consumption per capita must be smaller than 4.5 kg/capita, as described in post 218:
Aiano places a 'conservative estimate' of the annual iron consumption in Roman Britain at 1.5 Kg/head. This figure is based on the assumption that the need would be rather lower than the 4.5 kg/head that he quotes for the seventeenth century; and from this he goes on to project an annual output of 2250 tonnes (with an assumed population of 1.5 million). -Iron for the Eagles
If we estimate Roman iron production based on how Han iron production was estimated, then Roman iron production would only be on the level of 10,000-20,000 tonnes.
http://historum.com/ancient-history/41856-ancient-industry-22.html
>>1090229
well that still puts Rome significantly ahead then, but just for the record you don't support the other guy's position that Rome was a not nearly as impressive state that fits his narrative of europe being dirt poor throughout history right?
>>1056499
>play TW
>20 stack army of archers
>cavalary literally run through my entire army
>flawless tactic
>>1090247
Might as well pull a number out of a hat if you're going to rely on the 80,000 tons of iron per annum.
The 5,000 tons of iron per annum doesn't even make sense.
Excavated inscriptions show that there are more than 50 iron offices and each office could have multiple iron sites with subsidiary iron sites with an unknown amount of furnaces.
The Eastern Han and the Roman Empire were contemporary superpowers. I find no need to degenerate the Han to glorify the Roman Empier or vice versa.
>>1090280
I by no means want to degenerate the Han, I just found that the article had the information I wanted to present that debunk the other guy
I'm just trying to show the other guy that he is wrong
>>1090284
debunks*
>>1090284
I have no strong feelings either way. The other anon seems to have an ax to grind.
The misinformation in Han vs Rome(by an extension "East" vs "West") threads is astounding.
>>1090280
also you did make clear that you consider rome a superpower but do you think Rome fits the other guy's narrative [of a dirt poor europe]?
>>1090301
I lack the necessary knowledge to make an informed opinion on premodern wealth.
>>1090319
so does everyone else in the thread 2bh
>>1089625
>They are good evidence along with the works of authors you deliberately chose to ignore
No. But obviously you're too stubborn to consider a different point so I won't even bother going further on this.
>I can easily dismiss all of the authors you've mentioned on the same grounds
Le Goff and Runciman are both credible and academically credible historians, their works have been reviewed numerous times by most universities and schools and they're considered quality and accurate on European medieval history.
>I've never changed my point
First you rambled about Europe being "dirt poor," but now, they're just "poorer than everyone else." Which is a stark difference because one is comparative. You seem to lose coherence by every post.
>I've already answered this
By dismissing my authors? By saying that you'll only accept contemporary sources? You've yet to address specifically my point and still cling to this horrible skewed twist of my argument.
>All those are irrelevant information
>europe was dirt poor
>but they had a rich trading league in the north which was able to produce a new style of architecture and produce massive works in the style
How is that irrelevant?
Learn basic English before you start making shit arguments, it's obvious you can barely comprehend anything I'm saying because each retort is either a no u or a misunderstanding of a basic argument.
>>1056577
The mongols had huge numbers of heavy cavalry, they're only known for their horse archers because their bows were so good at a time when horse archery was basically impossible for Europeans because of shit bow technology.
>>1090606
The amount of mental gymnastics you've performed can make a politician blush. We're running in circle where I present logical arguments and facts, and you ignore, twist and/or deflect. You're not interested in anything besides shit posting.
The authors you defer authority to are dubious for stated reasons and you haven't presented any solid counterarguments besides deflection. But please feel free to continue bombarding me with logical fallacies to maintain your cognitive bias.
>>1061804
>I take "what is a palantir" for 200 Alex
Should I take up archery? Seems pretty fun and there is a local archery club that does re-enactments at shit at the local castle.
Let this fucking thread die already. Nobody wants to read your walls of greentext.
>>1090284
>>1090301
As I said Rome was an aberration to Europe and the continent wouldn't reach that level of wealth until recently. I state that Rome's capabilities are exaggerated because they left such well-preserved and extensive records that they appear godlike compared to their contemporaries such as the Sassanids and the Han, and what the latter knew about them were rumors and tales as both had no direct contact with one another.
>>1057486
truth
Nice thread OP
Rome was 800 1990 dollar iirc.
Have fun flinging shit you bunch of autists.
>>1091242
but muh economic health
>>1091738
>Have village
>Village burned to the ground by invading army
>Rebuild village
>Raises GDP
Do you see how flawed the metric is? If we're measuring things by GDP then Northern France during the Hundred Year War was the most productive and richest area in Europe.
>>1091826
Yeah but livestock and harvests being destroyed lowers it. That said France is not in the table.
That broken window thing doesn't work here.
>>1091845
Actually most raiding forces carry off the livestock but that's besides the point. The point is that GDP measures productivity but it doesn't mean that what's being produced has any value, it's not a measure of prosperity.
>>1091890
>Actually most raiding forces carry off the livestock but that's besides the point.
That is destroying right? Whether it is in the belly of a soldier or a rotting carcass in the field doesn't matter much.
Anyways GDP per capita is not a measure of prosperity according to you but would you say it is an indication? Because it does seem to exactly correlate with primary sources we have which describe the wealth of existing countries relative to each other.
>>1091910
GDP alone is a poor indicator but if it was paired with another metric like CPI I might be inclined to believe the data but as it stands they're just numbers on a paper
>>1091946
Want me to link the paper itself? Also includes data on real wage and cost of living I believe. The post Black Death rise is pretty amazing
>>1092003
Go ahead I'm interested in seeing this
>>1092076
Okay well it's a project that has been going on for like almost a decade initiated by Stephen Broadberry with the aim to revise the work of Madison. Researchers from all over the world tagged along so we know have a reasonable indication of labor productivity and gdp per capita in a number of nations.
I believe the project is called "Accounting for the great divergence" but it also examines the little divergence in Europe and the little Divergence in Asia followed by the rapid industrialization of Japan.
Some older papers of his contain lower numbers for China but these have been revised after it turned out the Song was way richer than expected.
Introduction: http://voxeu.org/article/accounting-great-divergence
https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/People/sites/stephen.broadberry/SitePages/Biography.aspx
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54573/
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/events/conferences/longrungrowth/broadberry.pdf
On China:
http://eh.net/eha/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Broadberry.pdf
And here is another paper by one of the associate professors from Holland who delved into manuscript and book production showing how the printing press with moveable types was invented because there was already a demand and just how much more was produced in Western Europe.
https://socialhistory.org/sites/default/files/docs/projects/books500-1800.pdf
>>1092134
*Half a decade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EqRdMlyIZU&feature=youtu.be
Cavalry.
/thread
>>1092134
I've read this paper and it focuses entirely on GDP. While yes it speaks of real wage, cost of living and per capita incomes it only does so in passing. When observing the development in Asia it states things that are factually incorrect and admits on several occasion the difficulty of analyzing certain periods and factors due to the lack of data and records. It even admits in the conclusion that it requires more data, and more regions need to be analyzed besides East Asia and India to form a more accurate picture.
This is a WIP and therefore the comparison between Europe and the rest of the Old World cannot be made using this source alone.
>>1092379
I realize it's still work in progress but it the general trends observed are similar to those found in late medieval and early modern primary sources i.e. the Low countries overtaking Italy. Adam Smith (who never visited China) also concludes that while most accounts on China differ they all agree on one thing and that was the fact that wages for labor and artificers were rather low.
But what is the factual incorrect thing you spotted?
>>1056586
Wales IS a country. Its just not a Kingdom. Its a Principality.
>>1092399
>Adam Smith (who never visited China) also concludes that while most accounts on China differ they all agree on one thing and that was the fact that wages for labor and artificers were rather low.
There's a simple explanation for that, China has had an excessive surplus of labor since the Yuan Dynasty and suffered from overpopulation since the Ming. That's why industrial machines such as the Chinese equivalent of the spinning jenny never saw widespread adoption and were eventually abandoned.
>But what is the factual incorrect thing you spotted?
That Ming turned inwards and adopted a closed door policy despite historical evidence showing that they still participated in the Indian Ocean trade. That Japan overtook Ming China and India despite having a lower population and less natural resources but then again we're look at GDP so that could be a flaw of the metric.
>>1092526
I agree with the first bit, the labor surplus I have found in more sources and it's quite logical when you see their focus on agriculture and Southern Chinese rice production.
I also reckon that Ming still traded and the effective ban on it was done away with a few times until Qing arrived, on the other hand Western powers fought tooth and nail to open up Chinese trade more as proven by a few military encounters between them.
The little Asian divergence with Japan taking a lead over China and India does not strike me as weird at all though, marriage patterns, literacy, potential for growth were all present. Besides when have natural resources ever indicated prosperity and a good economy. Spain had tons of gold and it did the opposite of encouraging economic growth.
>>1091153
>logical arguments and facts
Like what? A claim that Europe was "dirt poor," which is hinged on 18th century extrapolations, a sociologist's vague little quip, and Ibn Kaldun's accounts of Christian merchants. Yes, what an astoundingly insightful conclusion drawn from only the best of evidence, ignore any other conflicting views based on the premise that they could be biased despite the fact that all of academia accepts their works as credible, with Runicman being the only one considered outdated.
>are dubious
You're not worth anyone's time. You'd take an American sociologist's tiny quip over some of the most influential and insightful historians of 20th century. Sinoboos are real kind of cancer.
>logical fallacies
>if I just say "logical fallacies" it makes me smart and disputes his argument
Logical fallacies are objections made on arguments, not something I would "bombard" you with. Normally one would say which logical fallacy is at play, but you'd rather go the 16 year old method of saying logical fallacy and coward away.
I didn't think I could find a more perfect embodiment of a sophist. Thank you for enlightening me to what it's like to have autism. I'll stop suffering this board by replying to you anymore.
>>1059820
Horses went extinct.
>>1092880
The level of self-delusion and willful ignorance in this post is amazing. You don't even know what a logical fallacy is and yet you make the attempt to describe it, you are the essence of a pseudo-intellectual shit-poster. I've made all my points and my criticism of Western academia if you choose to ignore them then the fault rests on you. This isn't a hug-box or a safe zone where you think your world views are safe, if you want someone to feed your Eurocentric viewpoint go to /pol/ which judging from your behavior is exactly where you belong.
Were early firearms better than bows?
I recall reading that the Ottomans had a lot of success with adapting firearms.
>>1094072
Early firearms were notoriously unreliable and plain dangerous to use. James II, king of Scotland was famously killed by an exploding cannon in 1460(a century after cannons became commonplace in the battlefield). In terms of reliability, range and accuracy a skilled bowman armed with a longbow or a composite bow could probably outperform a gunner well into the 16th century. But battlefield usefulness isn't a matter of individual skill, and guns have various practical advantages over bows. Depending on military organisation, a 15th century army relying on firearms could defeat one relying on bows - the battle of Castillon(which concluded the military engagements of the 100 years war) is a textbook example of this.
The Turks used bombards to great effect in reducing the defenses of Constantinople and their adoption of firearms is one of the main reasons for their rapid expansion in the middle east. The Ottomans, Safavids and Mughals all overwhelmed their bow-using opponents by adopting firearms, which is why they're sometimes called 'the Gunpowder Empires'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Empires
>>1091826
back again, you misunderstood my post, I guess, what I'm saying is that you can't call Rome an aberration on the continent if medieval europe outperforms it in gdp per capita,
to do that medieval europe needs to be at least approaching roman wealth and production to be able to artificially raise gdp per capita (since it needs to have all the necessary goods)
which already makes the statement 'rome is an aberration' false
oh and Rome was NOT very economically healthy, let me get that out of the way
medieval europe surpasses it in that metric, so it is more probable that high medieval europe was richer all around
I feel like you should backtrack from this statement
I'm getting all sorts of errors trying to post this btw goddamn it Hiroyuki
>>1094072
What is your definition of early? Pre or post matchlock?
Pre matchlock reproduction can hit a man sized target at 25-40 yards. Not to bad and on top of this gunshot wounds are way more terrifying than arrow wounds. That said at this time they were still expensive and simply couldn't be used en-masse like longbows could. By the 1450s matchlocks arrived and production of gunpowder become better and cheaper.
One thing to keep in mind is that crossbow, guns and longbows didn't directly compete on the battlefield since for a long time they simply had different roles. England, France and Burgundy all employed massed longbow archery during the 15th century and during that time the number of crossbowmen and gunner simply was not high enough to replace said longbow people. Massed gunnery only really started to become a thing after the 1550-1590 in Europe, prior to that pikemen were still expected to meet in a violent clash.
According to period texts (which I sadly cannot find right now) Matchlock guns were only slightly less accurate than longbows but easier to use, cheaper (in terms of ammunition) and more destructive per shot. Crossbows trumped both in accuracy but the longbow remained the fastest firing weapon, although their destructiveness relied on large numbers of longbowmen as told by De Commynes.
>>1056577
go eat some cheerios John Green
>>1094634
>According to period texts (which I sadly cannot find right now)
https://bowvsmusket.com/2016/04/30/english-books-on-bow-vs-musket-issue/
Here u go
>Matchlock guns were only slightly less accurate than longbows
Different sources have different opinions on that. The gun fanboys said that the gun was more accurate and the yewaboos said that the bow was more accurate. The ballistics are so different that an argument can be made either way.
>but easier to use
Guns didn't need as much strength but they required a lot more training, because they were so dangerous, a fact which is repeatedly emphasized in period military manuals.
>cheaper (in terms of ammunition)
Bullets were definitely cheaper than bows, but the guns themselves were so much more expensive than bows that an archer would need to lose about 100 arrows before he broke even. The initial investment in arms was more worrisome to the government than the ammunition prices since the majority of the weapons were for local militias and probably wouldn't see service anyway.
>>1056499
Once during the medieval time in Sweden a king won with 2500 farmers with bows against 12 000 danish heavy cavalary/infantry.
But wouldn't for example the roman formation testuedo make archers worthless? And this was 1000 years before the dark ages.
>>1094608
Read the conclusion of the data. The author admits that records are incomplete and require further study. It's much easier to find records for Medieval Europe than it is the Roman era as the former was more recent.
Medieval Europe was mix of republics, city-states, theocracies and feudal kingdoms. Rome was a unified republic and later an empire that spanned the continent with highly developed infrastructure, a large labor pool and extensive trade routes. The idea that Medieval Europe, which was plagued with nonstop conflict, would be more prosperous than the Roman Empire logically makes no sense and the only conclusion one can make of that is that more data needs to be found on Rome's economy.
>>1094488
>James II, king of Scotland was famously killed by an exploding cannon in 1460(a century after cannons became commonplace in the battlefield). In terms of reliability, range and accuracy a skilled bowman armed with a longbow or a composite bow could probably outperform a gunner well into the 16th century.
this is some serious memery going on
>>1099833
being divided encourages competition and requires urban centres to be profitable, many urban centres in the roman empire ran at a deficit but they kept existing because the romans needed them for administrative and military purposes among others, they had the power to keep these centres in existance
in fact it has always been thought that rome was generally weak economically, and had a way too agricultural economy, luckily that is no longer the case and people are re-evaluating Rome, but facts still stand
medieval europe had the merchant class allying itself with kings who tried to curb the power of the nobility, after trade was opened up again in the high middle ages cities grew,
there emerged a non noble city elite, guilds came into existance and these new rich people were willing to do patronage and support things like the building of gothic cathedrals etc.
industries emerged like the wool industry in flanders after an improved spinning wheel found its way there from muslim spain, the fact that the nobility weakened and the kings grew in strength was a good thing because it granted more power to the cities, who would form city leagues among other things
In fact, I think feudalism was beneficial to europe as a whole in the end, also after serfdom declined the economy and productivity soared,
the city states in italy too, ever vying for power and prestige, tried to outperform one another in every way, developping industries and eventually spawned what is commonly believed to be the first widespread practise of capitalism. Competition between states became more and more motivated by economy
and a more complex understanding of economy at that.
There is much more, but I wasn't planning to type something like this out anyway because it's not worth it
Anyway you keep bashing gdp per capita as a figure but I think that's not fair if you don't know how the data was collected and figures are calculated, inform yourself more before you dismiss it
