Why use crossbowmen over archers?
Easier to train
>>1348494
They're easier to train.
>>1348494
No need for training,or not as much at least
>>1348508
More range, more powerful projectile, easier to aim.
>>1348508
crossbows are better in tight spaces like murder holes
>>1348510
Easier training =/= less training
>>1348510
You can very easily raise the peasant/urban levies and hand them a crossbow
>>1348510
why waste time training peasants to be good bowmen when you could just give them a crossbow and have them be just as effective?
>>1348510
It takes years to create a competent archer, but only a few days to create a competent crossbowman
crossbowmen don't need any training, and hardly any strength
just point and shoot
>>1348525
Maybe if they didn't outlaw the Longbow in everywhere but England they could field more archers.
>>1348515
>more range
you're retarded
>>1348494
I want to use crossbow in D&D because I think they look awesome with clerics, but it takes longer to reload...
Reminder that crossbowmen were highly paid career mercenaries.
/his/ is a pile of garbage as usual.
>>1348494
Because its is easier and cheaper to hire a company of trained and experienced crossbowmen than it is to pull your peasant men off their farms.
>>1348494
armor piercing would be the best advantage
then being easier to train than a bowmen and wasting less bolts would also be a good pro
obviously they had a very slow rate of fire but in a siege they would be pretty useful or even in open battle if properly protected
>>1348548
>outlaw the Longbow
wut
care to elaborate?
>>1348494
>Easier to train xDDDDDD
This would be the standard shitty idea. It is wrong when you see fact. Why would the King of France pay really expensive Genoese Crossbowmen if they were so "easy to train ?".
Here's the real reason : The Crossbow is superior to the bow.
>B-B-But... Muh longbowmen
Yes, yes, you're right.
Let's say things clearly : In range battles, longbows are superior to crossbows, due to their huge rate of fire. But medieval warfare isn't about range battles. In fact, they're rare, they're the exception. Medieval warfare is mostly siege warfare, and in this case, the crossbow is superior, because you can shoot behind a wall or a pavise and keep shooting out of any harm. Same goes for naval battles. Take the battle of La Rochelle in the XIVth Century and you'll see how a pack of crossbowmen are invincible when protected on a ship, compared to the hapless longbowmen.
Also, crossbows are armor piercing, hence why they continued to be used long after the longbow.
You know what I hate about crossbows?
>>1348510
Because more training = more resources. Which is easier on the economy.
Sherman was more cost effective than the Panther for example.
>>1348713
If they were easier to train, then the King of France would have just raised urban militias for his army. It is true by the way, the french army was partly built of militias... But why would you hire those expensive Genoese guys really far away if any peasant could be trained with the crossbow ?
Because it wasn't a easy weapon to use, it wasn't the Colt of the Middle Ages. The crossbow is expensive, it is a fragile tool, it is impracticle to build and only a crossbow guild or corporation (Like the Balistei in italy) could produce them. If the first crossbows could be loaded with your hands, they became progressively more difficult to reload, using a lot of ropes or complex mechanisms. It was also, sometimes, akin to a crew-based arm : You had the shooter (Experienced and constantly trained with it), the valet reloading it, and the guy holding the pavise.
>>1348739
Alright, these are fair points.
>>1348753
Well, to be fair, I'm exagerating a bit. The crossbow wasn't an incredibly rare weapon that required 20 years of daily practice to master. It was certainly, indeed, much easier to use than the Longbow, where at least 5 years of experience were needed to properly use one. But still. The crossbow wasn't a popular weapon used by peasants, contrarly to what most people like to think. It was like a medieval sniper rifle if you wish to compare : Not a complicated weapon to use, but you would still rather hire people who are highly trained to use it.
It was the reason that the French, in the early XIVth Century, loved to hire Genoeses : Because they were sailors (And the XBow is superior in naval warfare), there were plenty of people from Genoa who knew perfectly how to care and use their crossbow in the heat of battle.
>>1348508
Crossbow bolts can punch through plate because they are several times as heavy and have more kinetic energy. Arrows have trouble with full plate.
>>1348739
I'll admit, my knowledge of medieval soldiery is, well, limited. But weren't Genoese well decked out as well, adding to their costs?
>>1348693
Easier isn't easy. Being a competent archer in a battle setting is incredibly difficult, whereas you can become a competent crossbowman with a few years' training.
>>1348799
Genoa is a city of sailors, and many sailors serving on the galleys had to use a crossbow. In naval warfare, the crossbow is much superior to any bow due to geometry : You shoot directly at the ship in front of you, and it's easy to be protected from flying arrows. Anyhow, it's not hard to understand the motivation from the French King to hire them : Genoa was full of trained marksmen, who came with their own valets, their pavise, their brigandine armors and their shortswords. They were known as loyal troops, competent and all.
Sadly, they were sacrificed at the battle of Crécy, where they had to fight without their pavise. And there you see how the crossbow is much inferior to the longbows in ranged battles... After this, the French had to rely on independent Great Companies to have ranged soldiers (Both longbows and crossbows), Great Companies who unforunately would go ravaging the countryside once their pay was docked. Until 1445 when Charles VII ordered the creation of the "franch-archers" corpse, men recruited in local parishes to be regulary trained in the usage of either longbows or crossbows.
>>1348814
Oh good to know, thanks for the info bud.
>>1348494
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvTymyb1bBE
crossbows have an advantage over bows in sieges because you can hold and aim them indefinetly and snipe people off (or from) walls.
>>1348794
Why people even bothered with plate?
>>1348494
They were much more powerful than most bows. For example, you'd need an archer built like a brick shithouse with a longbow and bodkin arrows and even then it'd be unlikely to get through plate armour, whereas a crossbow is much more likely to get through plate armour because it's more powerful
>>1348970
Probably because the other anon is exagerating. Crossbow bolts cant melt steel plates.
>>1348979
stfu lol
>>1348992
edward street represent
>>1348979
>They were much more powerful than most bows.
Not necessarily, if we speak of warbows and especially english longbows. There are many types of bows and crossbows anyway.
This video is great to explain the differences. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiXHImU4Yk
>>1349031
the moral of story still remains that it takes a special kind of man and a large amount of training to be able to have the same consistency of armour-piercing that any feudal peasant levy with a crossbow and a week's worth of training would have
>>1349040
Oh, yeah. Absolutely. But the peasant isnt very likely to have a crossbow, although he can always be given one during a siege. Many castles apparently stored a few crossbows and bolts.
>>1349077
the peasant isn't likely to have a crossbow but i'd imagine his liege lord would
I love being able to kill Men at Arms in Chivalry with one shot with the heavy xbow.
and the thing is, I'm consistent in my shots.
![3703-4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hJNIrFt.jpg "3703-4[1].jpg")
All the advantages of a crossbow:
1. Easier to train, you can reach proficiency with it in about an hour (though that's not to say there weren't professionals like the Genoese)
2. Requires very little physical strength and therefore isn't as exhausting as using a handbow.
3. You can keep up tension forever, making it easy to use in a siege (both offensively and defensively). You can keep your crossbow at the ready and wait for the enemy to poke out his head.
4. Penetrative power. A crossbow was the only ranged weapon with a chance (though not guarantee) to puncture plate armor at close distances.
5. Pavisses. Often overlooked, but you can have a bowman that fires about 18 shots per minute and is entirely defenseless, or one that fires 3 shots per minute but is safely hidden behind a shield.
>M-Muh Agincourt though
Had little to do with longbows and more with horrible leadership and bad weather. Note that it's famous because of how many French knights were captured. You generally don't capture knights that have been pierced by dozens of arrows.
>M-Muh Crecy muhfugga
Again, bad leadership. The Genoese crossbowmen lost out against the longbows because they were forced onto the field rapidly, without their pavises. Without proper protection they couldn't sustain a prolonged ranged encounter and retreated. The French didn't get what they paid for so they trampled their mecernaries.
A lot of shit leadership in the early stages of the war. I wonder if that has anything to do with the French king being LITERALLY INSANE. Nah, that can't be...
>>1348548
>outlaw the Longbow
U fookin' wot m8? You know the Longbow only originated in Wales, right? And the English copied it because they're right next to Wales? And the rest of Europe simply didn't care to switch because it would be too expensive and require training of freeman peasants to be obligated by law.
>>1348508
Muslims hated them.
>>1348970
1. Crossbows aren't guaranted to puncture plate, that mostly happens at close range. Crossbow bolts lose kinetic energy over longer ranges.
2. Let's say a crossbow punctures plate. Behind that plate is chainmail, which is pretty good at catching arrows and crossbow bolts. Behind that is gambeson, or very thick padded cloth that gives decent protection against cuts and stabs. Behind that is skin. Behind THAT the muscles, organs and all the other squishy things you want to hit.
Just penetrating the plate isn't enough to kill, or even wound someone. You need to get past two other layers of armor and THEN you need to pierce deep enough to make the result more than a flesh wound. This is why you need to be pretty close to actually kill a knight, usually so close that whoever fired that crossbow bolt is fucked anyway because the guy behind you will slap his shit.
There's a reason why plate armor was invented after the crossbow, and why it persisted long after the crossbow became outdated. If it really was a plate trivializer, people would've most likely abandoned armor altogether (as they did in the later stages of the gunpowder era, with the exception of cuirassiers).
>>1349161
Why did anyone bother to use bows, especially when the Romans were going around with crossbows
>>1348494
1. Easier to train
>"Here, put this end on the ground, pull back (crank etc for goats foot or w/e), put the bolt in, aim, shoot."
Don't have to be as strong as you use your back and both hands to draw the string back if not using a goats foot or windlass.
2. Can hold aim for longer (useful for sieges especially)
You can hold a crossbow aimed at a particular point on a rampart etc indefinitely, as compared to a war bow which can't be held for longer than a few seconds at most.
3. Much more powerful at close range (but much less so over distance)
A crossbow fires a much smaller and lighter bolt as compared to a longbow, but can reach much higher poundages (easily 600 pounds compared to a bows ~120) which results in a higher initial force applied to target, but that force drops off quickly due to air resistance and lower inertia over distance.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head
>>1349215
>2. Let's say a crossbow punctures plate. Behind that plate is chainmail
no
>>1348696
Kek
>>1349242
>the Romans were going around with crossbows
What?
>>1349242
>>1349256
The Romans, hell even the ancient Greeks, used crossbows in limited amounts. It's not a difficult concept to invent when you have bows, but i dont know why they didnt take off in popularity until the high medieval period when as posters in this thread claim it was so superior to the bow
>>1348739
>>1348778
Not the guy you were talkin to but
It is easier to find someone strong enough to wield a weak (but still effective) crossbow than it is to find one strong enough to wield an effective longbow (would have to be over 80 pounds to penetrate gambeson/mail).
That's not to say Genoese crossbowmen were easy to train, they were highly proficient at there craft and, if I'm not mistaken, were just as good with other hand weapons if necessary, not to mention their armor.
Yes, the very complex windlasses and others were extremely hard to manufacture, but a small, powerful, simple crossbow, drawn by hand or with goats foot can be made in the average castle blacksmith's.
>>1349290
Breh, that's a gastraphetes. Gastraphetes are shit m8.
>>1349256
>>1349283
A Greek "Gastraphetes" (Belly Riser) Crossbowman
>>1349300
No, that's not a Gastraphetes, it's a Roman crossbow from well after ancient Greece, around 350AD perhaps.
Stop talking shite, it's a god dam crossbow.
The Chinese also famously used crossbows extensively during the warring states and han empire periods, so it probably travelled down the silk road too.
>>1348678
I'm pretty sure longbows shoot straight through armour too m8.
>>1348970
>The power of the crossbow, in one way, was considerably more than the longbow’s. It could “draw” about 750 pounds, compared with the longbow’s 70–150 pounds, but its released energy was comparatively inefficient because the span was short and its tips, whose whiplash movement turned stored energy into bolt speed and range, moved through a much shorter trajectory than the long and powerful expanse of the longbow’s. Also, the longbow’s arrow was heavier than a quarrel, which gave it greater penetrative power over a greater distance. To match the longbow’s lethality, the crossbow would have had to be considerably larger, which would have made it impossibly unwieldy. Even in its comparatively light form it already suffered from a lengthy loading procedure that left the crossbowman vulnerable.
>These characteristics molded the tactical use of both types of bow. The crossbow tended to be deployed in relatively close action where the flat trajectory would have a potentially devastating effect (the problem was, of course, that the closer the crossbowman was to the action, the greater his chances of being ridden down or shot down during the relatively lengthy periods of reloading). The longbow, on the other hand, tended to be used at longer distance in arcing trajectories where its high speed of reloading (about twelve shafts per minute, compared with perhaps three per minute for the crossbow—about the same rate as a black-powder musket) could inflict a storm of harm on the enemy.
>>1349290
Am interested. Romans had crossbowmen in limited numbers to my understanding. Why did the crossbow only increase in use in the high medieval period?
>>1349301
spamming those dudes in age of mythology was fuckin cash
>>1349322
That is what i dont understand. Perhaps it was a size issue, a crossbow is much bulkier to carry about than a bow. Archers in antiquity didnt originate from professional militarys, the professional forces always adopted some sort of heavy infantry like the phalanx or legions, the archers came from auxiliary people who were naturally archers as their way of life. Perhaps the crossbow needs a higher level of state organisation to get widespread use, which is why we see it appear in the Chinese states very early, but not the romans or greeks as they simply recruited foreigners for the role, but in medieval states, we see them going for crossbows.
The crossbow seems very linked to a more organised state that also focuses on ranged warfare. If one of these points is missing you find bows.
>>1349244
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour
>In armoured techniques taught in the German school of swordsmanship, the attacker concentrates on these "weak spots", resulting in a fighting style very different from unarmoured sword-fighting. Because of this weakness most warriors wore a mail shirt (haubergeon or hauberk) beneath their plate armour (or coat-of-plates). Later, full mail shirts were replaced with mail patches, called gussets, sewn onto a gambeson or arming jacket.
Depending on the exact period, hauberks could be worn directly under the plate.
Obscure fact: crossbows saw some use in Central Africa
>"Among the crowd today I saw men armed with crossbows, from which are shot either iron-headed arrows, or the little insignificant looking but really most deadly, poison-tipped arrows. These are only slender harmless reeds, a foot long, whose sharpened ends are dipped into a deadly vegetable poison, which these people know how to make. The arrows are so light that they would blow away if they were simply laid in the groove of the bow. To prevent this they use a kind of sticky gum, a lump of which is kept on the underside of the bow, and with which a small spot in the groove is lightly rubbed. The handle of the bow is ingeniously split, and by a little peg, which acts as a trigger, the bow-string is disengaged, and, as the spring is very strong, sends the arrow to a great distance, and light as it is, with great force. But the merest puncture kills inevitably. They are good marksmen with their bows, which require great strength to bend. They have to sit on their haunches, and apply both feet to the middle of the bow, while they pull with all their strength on the string to bend it back."
- Paul du Chaillu, 1861
They're different from East African crossbows, which are inspired by Indian ones, and from West African crossbows, which were inspired by the Portuguese. Central African crossbows seem to have been inspired by the fishing crossbows used by Scandinavian traders.
>>1349322
Not him, but it's generally attributed to an upsurge in siege warfare during the tenth century. There is very little historical record of the Roman crossbows, and the few depictions have to do with hunting, not warfare.
>>1349244
>no
Kek wut
Armor in layers m8
>plate
>gambeson
>undershirt
>flesh
>>1349352
Ah okay. Castles n shit
>>1349313
Neither one "shoots straight through" but both can penetrate armour under the right conditions.
>>1349317
>The longbow, on the other hand, tended to be used at longer distance in arcing trajectories
Dr Capwell disagrees
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukvlZcxNAVY
At about 11 min
>>1349371
In that specific scenario (high Medieval English longbowmen)
Archers throughout history have fired in high arcs because not everyone wears full plate.
>>1349390
He was talking about longbows specifically desu.
>>1349400
But I'm not :)
During the Crusades there are several accounts of Muslims immediately executing captured crossbowmen, something only ever done previously to apostates. At Jacob's Ford most notably.
Take that for what it's worth.
>>1348494
Because they were available and reliable.
That's the one point that everyone so far is missing here. Back then you didn't recruit a bunch of farm boys, equipped them with quality gear, and spent weeks or months training them at Medieval boot camp to roll out professional soldiers like you do today. Instead you went to war with the army you had, supplemented with the army you can buy (or the reverse in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance).
Unless you were England or from Eastern Europe/Asia, your choice in archers tended to be limited to all the foresters and hunters you can call to arms, plus the poorer foot soldiers from the retinue of a knight who couldn't afford to equip and train them as proper man-at-arms. This meant they were notoriously undisciplined, unreliable, and ineffective as soldiers.
Crossbowmen, however, tended to be mercenary companies of urban militia. They were usually from the same hometown, probably trained together, likely fought at sea together before taking up mercenary work, and being from trading cities usually could afford good crossbows. And as mercenaries they came to you already prepared, mobilized, and ready to deploy without having to wait for an uncertain call to muster and individually negotiate thousands of short term contracts with men who didn't have a collective reputation worth the effort.
>>1349443
Footsoldiers were regularly slaughtered in almost any theater of war. They simply were not worth the effort to ransom.
>>1349371
He's not saying longbows have to be fired directly, just that direct trajectories were also used and evidently preferred against heavily armored knights. That doesn't diminish the fact that the longbow at distance remains lethal and was more often employed in such a way.
>>1349467
Saladin took 700 prisoners at Jacob's Ford and only executed the crossbowmen though.
>>1349489
The bowmen and apostates, and again because they were worthless to him, as they've always been to most.
>>1349443
These were Templar troops also, who were also sometimes executed and not ransomed.
>>1348693
This is correct.
Military "training" was almost nonexistent in the middle ages.
>Crossbows are good because any poor faggot can use it.
>Crossbows are really expensive and require special materials.
So who paid for it?
Fighting Techniques of the Medieval World Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics
https://mega.nz/#!UcQDQbrC!S4FrGQXwU8d66NJOArPYMHpqFH_MSX-cynXzoQhgUFw
>>1349179
kek'd
underrated post
Im assuming that if only the best examples of armor tended to survive then there are little to no examples of punctured plate armor?
>>1348713
>What's wrong with that assumption exactly?
You are resorting to assumptions when facts are available, that's what's wrong.
A crossbow's much easier to use than a longbow.
A longbow you have to be strong enough to pull that sucker back and hold it til you aim and shoot
A crossbow you just have to put your weight into enough to push the string back into the catch mechanism, or use your lever or winch, then you can load it and fire at your leisure.
>>1348494
going into the medieval period body armor got much better. Even types that had been around for a long time like mail improved. Thus 60 pound bows no longer cut it. That in turn means rulers needed skilled wood workers or specialist and high quality wood. The last part is the real issue.
Crossbows are only really production gated by the volume of spring steel you can make.
>>1348688
>they needed to be stronger than a bowmen to pull the string if they didn't have the cog mechanism
no they didn't. even if the bow itself is heavier the muscles you use to pull it are completely different so they're not in any means comparable. any healthy, full grown man can deadlift ~80-100kg but try to do pull-ups with 2 fingers with similar amount of weight. plus even if they didn't have windlasses they did attach pulling hooks to their belts which eases the process significantly.
>>1350210
forgot one thing. the length of the draw. crossbow has it less than half, maybe even close to quarter of a longbow.
>>1349334
Romans and Greeks used missile warfare differently. For them, it is mostly for skirmishing and not a decisive factor in battles, largely because Ancient European missile weapons relied largely on javelins and slings and less than bows because their native bows are shit. Add to the fact that the Hoplite/Roman Legionary/Celtic Warrior in Chainmail were the most heavily armored infantry of the time. However late Rome started fielding missile units resembling the medieval ones, largely due to access to Asian Recurve Composite bows.
Not to mention the Gastraphetes is considered a fucking catapult in greek weaponology. It was used only in sieges and ship battles. Only lightly armed swift moving javelineers, slings, and bowmen were the missile troops in field battles.
In China, it was totally fuck different. Knowhow of making the recurve composite bow due to Central Asian Steppeniggers being neighbors meant that the ancient Chinks already had a powerful type of bow for their missile warfare. It doesnt help that between the Shang Dynasty to the early Warring States, most Chinese soldiers wore leather armor.
This meant 2 things
1) Other Chinese missile weapons like javelins and slings were phased out fuck early.
2) Archers played a decisive role in the Chink battlefield. Not just meme skirmishers.
>>1350262
Contd. OK so why crossbows caught on in China quite early?
We already established that archers played a decisive role in Ancient Chinese battlefields. Like their spear and sword wielding companions, they formed battle lines as opposed to a lose cloud of missile screens like the Romans.
By the Zhou period (1200's-500's AD), the Chinese began to ask themselves this question: how can I raise more missile troops? The answer came from their neighbors down South, primitive non-Chinese hunter gatherers who used a protocrossbow that threw out darts to small birds. The Chinks ran away with the idea and militarized it, giving birth to the military Crossbow sometime between 600s-400s AD
It was dreadfully effective, to the point that they played a central role in Ancient Chinese warfare in tactics resembling Pike & Shot warfare, sans shot.
In addition, they were also effective versus Steppe Nomads, particularly during the Campaigns of the Han Dynasty, were Crossbowmen and other missile troops entrenched themselves in movable fortifications to provide an anchor in the battlefield for their cavalry to fall back to and rearm/regroup versus Nomad Horse Archers.
![1-franc-archer[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zg9GtqO.jpg "1-franc-archer[1].jpg")
>>1349242
>Why did anyone bother to use bows
Well, Welsh/English culture had a culture of longbowmen. Freeman archers were obligated by law to spend an hour training with the longbow every sunday after church. Other places in Europe did not have such a cultural practice, and due to a lack of centralization as well as strong local laws and rights no feudal lord was able to enforce such laws and practices. Though the French tried introducing them through the use of Franc-Archers (freeman archers) late in the Hundred Years War, though not to great effect.
It's simply culture. The English and Welsh had a tradition of archery, while the Europeans had not so they favored crossbows.
>>1349582
Depending on where you're from, either the liege lord who levied his peasants or the cities who financed their militias. Longbows weren't exactly cheap either, considering they needed to made from a special kind of yew. Don't quote me on this, but I think that yew was so in demand it went downright extinct in England.
>>1350811
How do you explain Longbowmen forming the lynchpin of Burgundian armies then? Like the thousand recruiting in Artois, further thousand from Flanders etc.
>>1350262
>argely on javelins and slings and less than bows because their native bows are shit.
Actually it was because they had effective countermeasures to bowfire, namely the large shields they used. Javelins were preferred because they hit a lot harder than arrows, and so have a chance to punch mail armor, and being much heavier they also inconvenience the target even if he blocks it in his shield.
>>1348494
Because any dumb peasent with a bit of instruction can use it, like firearms
If shields and armor countered bows and crossbows why even bother with archers and crossbowmen? Seems like some infantrybaby propaganda because they got BTFO too hard as infantry was fucking useless meme.
![52a8feb2ecd75fa689f1b5024fe35257[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Y0l7TAn.jpg "52a8feb2ecd75fa689f1b5024fe35257[1].jpg")
>>1350850
>If shields and armor countered bows and crossbows why even bother with archers and crossbowmen?
Because full plate was the best of the best. It was borderline impervious and made knights effectively tanks... but most of the army isn't knights. Knights were a small minority. Most soldiers were either professional mercenaries or levies, that often had less than optimal gear. Gear that crossbow bolts and arrows COULD pierce.
Medieval lords simply had neither the money nor the infrastructure to equip every single one of their soldiers with top-of-the-line armor.
>>1350262
>Not to mention the Gastraphetes is considered a fucking catapult in greek weaponology.
It is and yet its only the size and power of a medieval crossbow. I think that just shows the difference in thought. Though apparently it was widely used in siege defences.
>>1350859
>Medieval lords simply had neither the money nor the infrastructure to equip every single one of their soldiers with top-of-the-line armor.
late medieval armies had a very high amount of people, who weren't knights, in full plate.
And then guns got popular probably for that reason
>>1348494
Because they worked fine and are more accurate.
>>1350885
Guns led to the rise of large standing armies, not the other way around. It was easier to train a large number of people with firearms not to mention the fact that an individual person can operate a gun whereas the cannot with a crossbow
>>1350833
The same reason why Greek mercenaries were common throughout antiquity. Standing armies were expensive and a society with more trained men than actual jobs will start to export armed men to people who need them
>>1350898
>Guns led to the rise of large standing armies, not the other way around
I didn't say it was. I said by the later period we see lots of soldiers in full plate. An individual can use a crossbow as easily as a gun
>>1350885
>late medieval armies had a very high amount of people, who weren't knights, in full plate.
Yes, men at arms. Who were rich enough to themselves afford full plate.
The fact that as late as the War of the Roses longbows were till used shows that not everyone was a knight or man at arms in those armies. Otherwise longbows would've phased out much earlier.
>>1350910
???
I was referring too
>The English and Welsh had a tradition of archery, while the Europeans had not so they favored crossbows.
Which is shown to be rather incorrect.
>>1350913
> I said by the later period we see lots of soldiers in full plate.
No you don't, you see more simplified version of armor due to guns and trained standing armies making the idea of a full plated knight running down peasant levies with low morale and obsolete strategy
>>1350898
>Guns led to the rise of large standing armies, not the other way around. It was easier to train a large number of people with firearms
This is the dumbest argument I've seen in my life. And I spend a fair amount of time on /his/. The whole point of the standing army is that you have a highly trained force ready to use. A standing army is also not focused on size but quality. The idea that ease of training men will lead to the standing army is just all kinds of stupid.
>>1350916
You are still discounting mercenary culture which was rife throughout the middle ages. Training men en masse only to let them go once a conflict is over leaves trained men with no other job opportunities than to find themselves another war
>>1350929
This. After the Hundred Years War ended, Italy had a massive influx of French and English condottieri. Trained professionals at the time had little to no loyalty to their countries and when the wars was over sold their services to the highest bidder.
>>1350929
Those from Flanders were chiefly from Brussels, Brugge and Liege. Journeyman craftsman and that sort of thing.
>>1350926
Most standing armies are organized around the idea that having a fully mustered population is financially unsustainable long term. Thus most armies are focused on training large numbers of conscripts during a wartime crisis which then brings in the time factor. A group of full time professionals being able to quickly train up new recruits to an effective level is a more wise strategy than having your army be made up entirely of an elite corps that you can lose in a single battle should luck not be on your side
>>1350944
You are a fucking retard holy shit. No, standing armies are not and were never supposed to be trainers for conscripts. And the first standing armies were definitely not seen that way.
>>1350918
Yes, you do. In the 15th century we see a very large increase in the amount of troops wearing full plate and though theyre not poor people they are not knights. This is just before the explosion (punny) of gunpower weapons.
Everyone always refuses to believe this.
> In the 15th and 16th centuries, large bodies of men-at-arms numbering thousands or even more than ten thousand men (as many as 60% of an army) were fighting on foot wearing full plate next to archers and crossbowmen.
>>1350944
You are retarded.
>>1350950
>hi im anon and I know nothing about economics, labor participation, military logistics or a populations muster capability
The first "standing armies" of antiquity existed due to the plunder/enslave economic model that saw its peak under Rome. You can't fully muster your population for a long war without destroying your economy (bear in mind that a fully mobilized society is 1% of the population under arms and considered financially unsustainable for a long term). Without a slave based economic to fill labor demand and keep the economy going, the standing armies of the late middle ages during peacetime was for deterrence and the ability to quickly train up a mobilized population in a time of war
>>1350971
But anon... The standing armies of the middle ages were not like that.
In France, the compagnies d'ordonnance were just mercenaries paid permanently, and franc-archers who were agreeing to be mobilized only to avoid paying taxes (The long-feared "taille"). It had nothing to do with conscripting your population.
>>1350974
Then it isn't a true standing army if the maintenance of the army is not a function of the state. The expectations of a mercenary are very difference from that of a professional soldier
>>1350983
Oh, but the Compagnie d'Ordonnance WERE a function of the french state. In fact, their creation by Charles VII was a little revolution in itself. For the first time, the King could rely on a permanent, loyal, trained and competent army he could use as he wished. But this large standing army was never seen as a "training base for conscripting forces". It was literally the army of France, nothing more. In fact, many kings afterwards had to pay bands of mercenaries (Swiss, or Landsknetch) to futher complete the small, professionnal army of the compagnies d'ordonnance.
The only thing is that the creation of this permanent army was literally that : Mercenaries who were forced to be professionalised.
>>1350971
So, your claim was that a standing army was needed so you could quickly train more troops during a levy
>>1350995
By your definition, Blackwater (Academi/Xi/whatever the fuck they are calling themselves nowadays) are part of the US army because they have a long term contract
The roles, expectations, functions, loyalty, and relationship to the state of a soldier are completely different from a mercenary company who hang around long term because the contract is there and they feel as if they are on the winning side.
>>1350999
New recruits/lower ranking soldiers are for deterrence and general defense functions. "Lifers" and the organization that exists to support them are for making sure that new recruits can be trained in somewhat of a short timeframe should the need arise
Literally every large army in the world is organized around this idea in one way or another
>>1351003
Well in this case, I am sorry, but no medieval army was a "standing army", just because it doesn't fit in your specific definition of an army.
>>1351009
They might be organised that way but the point of it isnt so that you can rapidly get new troops in a war, thats just the best structure for a military
>>1350898
You are confusing correlation and causation.
Yes the first two large standing armies, the Ottoman Janissaries and the Black Army of Hungary, both used guns heavily. However the earlier of the two only started to heavily use guns after fighting Hungarians who were using arquebus's in the mid 1430s. The Janissaries were formed in 1383.
The first two large standing western armies were both made with a eye to fight in the same region, the balkans, had very similar thinking put into them.
First the terrain limits the movement of large armies, thus it is a good idea to have a quick reaction force to take the passes and river crossings that you need to use. A standing professional army can start moving well before a feudal style army can be relied on to start marching out.
Second that quick reaction force needs to be man for man very powerful because it may well end up outside the distance that the much larger traditional elements can quickly reinforce them. Arquebus's, field artillery, strong morale and excellent training are ways of increasing the strength of that quick reaction force. Due to the terrain heavy investment in body armor is less useful then it would be elsewhere.
Third and lastly they were made for loyalty. Both the king of Hungary and the Ottoman Sultan rightly feared a number of internal/familial threats. Having a powerful fighting force directly loyal to you and your title is a good start on dealing with those threats.
>>1351026
During the late middle ages there were. although it might vary in size, the training, maintenance and administration of the army became a permanent function of the state. This is of course with mercenary armies where the administration is a temporary bureaucratic entity that mostly exist to pay the mercs
>>1349290
> but i dont know why they didnt take off in popularity until the high medieval period when as posters in this thread claim it was so superior to the bow
Engineering and material science.
Power of any bow is a balance of three principal factors: the length of the bowstave (ie, how big it is), the draw length ( ie how far back it can be pulled.), and the draw weight (how much force it takes to pull back)
a long bow-stave produces greater leverage, a long draw allows it a longer distance to accelerate the arrow/bolt, when draw weight is equal.
A bow, therefore, has a very long draw distance, and in the case of a longbow, a very long stave - both resulting in a very powerful bow.
A crossbow, using the same materials, has a shorter draw length - which means it cant be accelerated as fast. that makes it weaker. Likewise, a crossbow span/prod becomes even more unweildy, if it were the 4-5 foot size of a longbow. Thus, it is shorter, and therefore, weaker.
That can be countered by using a thicker, stronger stave. But there is an upper limit to how thick a stave is - you reach a point where the thickness impedes flexing, so it slows the bow firing. which makes it weaker again - basic physics - Kinetic energy Ek = ½ mv2 - a faster bolt will contain more energy than a heavier, slower one.
ctd:
>>1351063
As a result, a bow of the same materials can be made more powerful than a crossbow of the same materials, due to size and draw length.
and that's why crossbows were generally in low use through into the medieval era - they were limited in power and performance by the fact that they were made of the same materials as bows - usually yew.
the only solution to this, is to use different materials, and that's what happened somewhere in the 12th-13th century - new bow-making techniques for spans made of laminated horn slices carefully fitted together were developed, that allowed shorter spans with higher draw weights that allowed the crossbow to have more power than yew bows began to be developed. enter the 15th C and metallurgy had developed too, to such an extent that prods could finally be made from spring steel, instead of horn, or yew, and those in turn allowed even greater draw weights, without limiting the spring return rate, like thicker horn or yew staves would do. Prior to the late 14th century, people simply did not have the technical infrastructure or engineering ability to make homogenous steel billets large enough to make a crossbow prod, and for it to resist the tension and strain of the 500, 750, even 1,200 pound draw weights that they were able to do in steel. The bow-making technologies used to make the horn and the steel bows simply did not exist for the Picts, the Romans, the Greeks, all of whom used crossbows to some degree, it only appeared in the medieval era - and at that point it was immediately adopted and used to allow them to make powerful crossbows that could threaten the defensive technology of the era.
>>1351044
You still are ignoring the main problems that exist with any army which is the ability to recruit and to pay them on a full time basis. Janissary were slave (not chattel slaves for you idiots out there) soldiers that had no other option in life but to be in the military. The Ottomans at the time had enough expansionist momentum to pay for the maintenance of a full time force. Eventually the expansionary boom ended and the Janissary became a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare that mostly extorted people just to support themselves
>>1351051
A mercenary is a soldier who is paid to fight. In France, because of the Hundred Years War, there were thousands of mercenaries roaming in the french countryside, and they often attacked peasants and pillaged freely. The compagnie d'ordonnance was created by the King to create a stable body, taking all the loyal and competent soldiers while forcing all the violent ones to leave the Kingdom or cease their military activity. After the HYW, the compagnie d'ordonnance were not erased. They continued to exist for a long time, until they were replaced by real military regiments during the Renaissance. Still, the compagnie d'ordonnances were a real, permanent military, loyal, trained, ready to be mobilized at any time by the King. And it wasn't at all a body to enforce a massive conscription ; Massive conscription existed in France only with the Revolution and the "levée en masse" in the XVIII-XIXth Century. That doesn't mean that there wasn't any french army before that.
>>1351068
Most soldiers weren't paid either in antiquity or medieval times
>>1351069
>all soldiers are paid to fight
>all soldiers are mercenaries
>>1351078
>most soldiers weren't paid either in antiquity of medieval times
Wut ?
Are you completly retarded ?
Jesus, man... Take a book and start reading. The whole history of the middle ages is how the Kingdoms of Europe had to progressively start building an administration so that they could pay their troops, as the feudal obligations were completly nuts and nobody respected them.
In 1270 for the war of Gascony the french king had to give wages to all of his soldiers, even the knights bannerets, so they wouldn't run away and stop to follow their "feudal vow".
>>1351078
The word soldier literally means "payed"
>>1351083
The guy you quoted does have a point. War is financially draining and was often paid by plundering the defeated party. A soldier on the losing side would find that his employer was essentially financially ruined and couldn't look forward to getting paid. Many times soldiers and mercenaries signed on for conflicts with the expectation that most of their financial gain would come from plundering the enemy
>>1351094
Yes of course. But they were still paid, even if it was just two deniers a day and a small footsoldier was earning less money than a carpenter.
>>1351101
A soldier who even survived a losing battle during the middle ages was most likely a deserter who routed and now found himself in a strange faraway land (captured nobles were ransomed, everyone else executed)
>>1351083
You literally just proved me right, the middle ages developed an administration to pay their troops, as a replacement for the feudal system. For the majority of the period troops weren't paid, and in antiquity most troops weren't paid, the obvious exceptions being later Rome and Hellenistic Greeks.
Thanks.
>>1351086
Troops then.
>>1351003
>By your definition, Blackwater (Academi/Xi/whatever the fuck they are calling themselves nowadays) are part of the US army because they have a long term contract
You picked a bad example. Blackwater was in fact made by the CIA. Its founder was a U.S. Navy SEAL officer who came up with a idea as to how to solve the retention issue of highly trained special forces members. Erik Dean Prince's idea was to offer those that leave the armed service civilian employment with the pay rate being individually negotiated that is subject to change based on how bad the conditions are rather then on a fixed pay scale. Also as a private business it has ability to regain the employ of soldiers who had to leave the armed service do to personal crisis in a more direct and flexible manner then what the real army can do. Lastly more flexible deployments lengths so the soldiers who would be out do to the want of a home life can still be of use.
The CIA liked Erik's idea so much it gave him 15 million and contact info of former special forces members.
>>1351107
But battles were rare in the middle ages. Before the battle, there was all the campaign, the chevauchées, the endless sieges. You could, as a footsoldier, spend months without fighting a single battle. And you had to eat, and you couldn't always plunder, so you needed daily wages.
>muh ease of use and less training needed
later arbalests were much more powerful than longbows and used levers or winches reducing fatigue
a crossbowman can hold a loaded crossbow, ready to fire, longer than an archer can hold the string back
a crossbowman doesn't have to expose as much of himself to fire, he could even aim and fire using a mirror or periscope to look down the sights while in cover like ww1 snipers, pavise shields give them a strong advantage (unless they are left behind in the baggage train by an incompetent commander)
crossbows could be loaded by civilians or camp followers
most of these advantages are excellent during a siege or a prolonged skirmish against an army on top of a hill or over a bridge
>>1351114
They weren't paid though, they were obligated to serve. Only mercenaries were paid, but the lines between mercenary and soldier can become blurred.
>>1351119
"they were obligated to serve"
No they were not. In the "dark ages", with the frankish people, there was an obligation for landowners to serve. But consider those two things :
-The feudal tradition demanded only a service time of 40 days. Many dukes and counts came to the army, served 40 days and then went home, and 40 days isn't enough to campaign. To keep their knights under their service, the Kings had to pay them, and they did so really early in history.
-It was quickly possible to avoid to serve the army thanks to the scutage (In England) or the écuage (In France). Because of this, the totality (Not even the majority) of the medieval armies in and after the XIIth century were made of paid troops, whether they're urban militias, knights, or great companies.
>>1348494
Way better for Sieges. You can hold the Bolt ready to shoot
>>1351129
Yes, they were obligated to serve for 40 days.
Yes, after the 12th century, with only 3 centuries of medieval left but 8 preceding it, where unpaid troops was the norm. Therefore, most troops of the middle ages were not paid. The high and late middle ages aren't even 40% of the period.
>>1348494
cheaper to produce
>>1351147
really not
>>1351147
>its the "I decided to post disproved bullshit and didn't read the thread" post
>>1351143
>unpaid troops was the norm
kill yourself
>>1351068
>You still are ignoring the main problems that exist with any army which is the ability to recruit and to pay them on a full time basis. Janissary were slave (not chattel slaves for you idiots out there) soldiers that had no other option in life but to be in the military. The Ottomans at the time had enough expansionist momentum to pay for the maintenance of a full time force.
That had less to do with the end of the Ottoman state getting new land to make money via rent to buy methods and more to do with the outcomes of their actions against Venice. They took their trade ports in the east in order to force their terms on trade. That made the merchants of Venice far less competitive against other source of far eastern goods. This caused a marked growth in over land trade via Russia and sea routes to Asia starting in the late 16th century.
There was still a reason why every army had a dedicated bowmen part. If you're skillfull enough to use a bow, there is NO upside to using a crossbow period, it's a straight up worse weapon.
>>1351169
Prove me wrong. Oh you cant
>>1351194
Prove yourself right.
>>1349625
Thanks m8!
Bowmen = skilled, trained soldiers, dedicated to their craft, don't grow on trees, extremely valuable to the army. Crossbowmen = anybody can be one since it's extremely simple to use. Which one is better? The bow, which is the reason bowmen were still a thing for centuries after the crossbow was invented and the longbow was one of the most dominating and historically significant weapons during the medieval period.
But apparently no, according to this other chucklefuck here this weapon with lower range, similar penetrating power (speed of bolt was actually similar due to shorter draw length + bolts are lighter so kinetic energy ends up being rather similar), much heavier, lower cadence of fire, more prone to failures is totally the better weapon.
>>1351206
The vast majority of troops in the medieval period were feudal levies who weren't paid but obligated to serve, their reward would possibly be booty but mostly they paid scutage to get out of it which the leader would use to buy mercs.
In antiquity paid soldiers were even rarer with pretty much just the Romans and Hellenic greeks having paid troops, and half the time the Greeks did land for service rather than payment, theres a reason they had a specific term for paid troops.
>>1351248
>Bolts are lighter
Been watching any...
Lindybeige
lately?
>ITT: We all post without providing a source
>>1351281
>The vast majority of troops in the medieval period were feudal levies who weren't paid but obligated to serve, their reward would possibly be booty but mostly they paid scutage to get out of it which the leader would use to buy mercs.
>Translation: Everyone is Saxon England.
>>1348560
For a dnd cleric, a crossbow is an equal choice to a bow if you aren't an elf or otherwise get proficiency with bows.
Either you take rapid reload light crossbow, and have d8 19-20/x2, or take weapon prof longbow and have d8 20/x3. The crit profiles are essentially equivalent and a matter of preference (I prefer the more consistent crits).
Basically, you've got to burn one feat either way as a cleric.
>>1351314
Oh yes please show me where else in medieval europe all the troops were paid on wages
>>1351340
>Civita Militias in Italy (at least for militiamen who are serving on term)
>Frankish Miles System (paid in land though) which carried over to France & HRE.
>Pronoia System.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary
>>1351353
>Late specific examples of paid troops
I asked for proof that the majority of troops through the majority of the middle ages were paid, not specific examples of specific companies usually during the late period.
My point still stands, the majority of troops were not paid. Paid in land doesn't count as pay, we're specifically talking about wages here. Land for service was one of the most common forms of getting troops.
>>1348696
...they take to long to load
>>1351371
>Muh Levies.
>Land for service was one of the most common forms of getting troops.
Mobile baskeball hoops.
>>1351313
you have the internet, find the sources yourself you lazy cunt
>>1348494
Better for sieges because you can snipe people in a split second.
>>1351381
I have, and most of what is posted here is either uninformed bullshit or uninformed truth.
>>1351381
that picture is a strawman and therefore legitimately not an argument
>>1351380
Yeah so you cant prove that paid troops were the most common form of troops
>>1351407
I guess we could say they were agricultural entrepreneurs who paid rent in legal obligations.
So basically crossbows were weapons for unskilled stupid pleb just like european swords and bows were for skillful warriors.
>>1350890
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? It sounds awesome
>>1351423
That is what hollywood would have us believe. Problem is that crossbows were paid relatively good and the crossbow mercenaries were paid quite a sum too.
Probably has to do with the fact that a crossbow + all the associated equipment and armor places it above anyone but the middle and upper urban classes.
Even the English used them during the battle of Poitiers and in garrisons in France because it's a pretty damn accurate beast.
Those who say it's good because peasants can use it need to realize the bottom half of medieval society rarely fought in battles or sieges to begin with. At least in the high and late middle ages.
>>1351423
No, crossbows were good for sniping in sieges. Also they can be significantly more powerful.
>>1351438
Le Baker (yeah that's his actual name) writing an account of the Battle of Poitiers.
>>1351444
>Return
thanks man. I'ma look that up. It sounds cool as hell.
>>1351441
What battle is this?
>>1351469
No idea.
Ottoman Turks against Italian or Spanish. The Gunners clothing and armor is to generic for me to pin it down to either of those two though.
>>1351441
>Those who say it's good because peasants can use it need to realize the bottom half of medieval society rarely fought in battles or sieges to begin with. At least in the high and late middle ages.
This, peasants basically just went around fleeing from war. It was the yeomanry, freemen but not knights or nobles, who made up the bulk of armies.
It's akin to how republican Roman armies were made up of citizens over a certain level of wealth.
>>1348515
>no
>no
>no
>>1348567
>pull your peasant men off their farms
>this shit AGAIN and STILL
>FUCK THIS BOARD WITH THIS SHIT
>>1348693
Well, it's also the gear the genoese had, and the discipline. They were better trained in general, not just with the crossbow.
>>1351659
I would agree on easier to aim desu
>>1348693
>crossbows are armor piercing
It became standard practice to test armour by firing a crossbow at it, point blank, pretty quickly. The projectile is armour piercing to a point, but only because of it's mass. A longbow arrow with a bodkin point vibrated in flight due to a flexible shaft, meaning it literally bores through plate like a drill.
>>1351679
> A longbow arrow with a bodkin point vibrated in flight due to a flexible shaft, meaning it literally bores through plate like a drill.
no.
just no.
>>1349350
>tfw anon posted an interesting anecdote and nobody cared
>>1351767
It's called conditioning you unfit peasant.
>>1351679
>A longbow arrow with a bodkin point vibrated in flight due to a flexible shaft, meaning it literally bores through plate like a drill.
no. a longbow arrow with a bodkin point flies fast and has sharp point meaning it literally pierces through plate like a sharp thing pierces other things.
>>1351775
>build up immunity to bullets by shooting yourself with smaller caliber bullets
The human body has limits beyond any conditioning, sure the heat in that armour would exceed what a human could endure effectively enough to be able to engage in combat, atleast from time to time.
arrows aint shit
>>1348494
far FAR cheaper, a trained archer is a lifetime vocation who can charge dearly for their services, a crossbowman is about two weeks of practice, their gear is worth more than the men.
as for crossbow vs bow, a crossbow is much slower firing, but fires a short heavy projectile, so is generally more powerful at short range, beyond about 50 feet the shortness of the quarrel tends to cause stability issues, that's why you can't do the 'rain of arrows' style shit with them, their power drops off quiet sharply.
>>1351794
They seem to have done well anyways
>>1351802
What am I looking at?
>>1351359
they were allowed to loot the heathens, that was their pay
>>1352489
I'm guessing bolts but I don't know why someone would shoot a man in the skull three times
>>1352532
Before throwing him out of a plane?
>>1352489
Skull from the Battle of Visby. Three Bodkin arrow heads.
>>1352489
a skull from battle of visby, he been shot by 3 bodkin
>>1350881
>2. A state organised enough to make the mechanisms
When the Proto-Chinks were fucking each other up with Crossbows, Feudalism was still the name of the game.
Only the Qin started the "these must be state weapons produced only in arms factories" meme. The Kingdoms of Pre-Imperial China relied on their Dukes/Marquises raising their household troops that they themselves armed.
>>1348510
How's summer?
>>1348508
Can kill knight in full armor
>>1351767
well you see if it was a hot sunny day a knight would put a cloth over his armour like in the crusades
>>1348494
More powerful, more accurate.
>>1348508
All modern formations can be used with crossbows. You can crouch, lie down, move while firing, take aim more efficiently.
It opens a lot of strategic possibilities at the cost of range and fire rate. At short range it also has more punch.
>>1348548
What. The papacy actually outlawed crossbows in wars between catholic kingdoms iirc
>>1355710
And no one listened you dumb fuck the pope also banned archery do you think there were no archers as well?
>>1348688
they had a stirrup thing on the front to stick your foot through, any average man could pull the string back with a medium effort, that's part of the appeal you didn't need strong arms or high degrees of skill to operate it, why do you think it was so popular with the French and Italians?
>>1348991
Agincourt was an inside job
>>1349040
as if they'd be handing out crossbows to the peasants though they were expensive as fuck you can't hand out the good shit to some shifty sharecropper you'll never see it again
>>1350885
medieval guns weren't effective at killing,but because they were scary as fuck
>>1349161
>they were forced onto the field rapidly, without their pavises
>being such a fucking scrub that you need a giant shield to not get massacred immediately in battle
kek, crossbowmen were a meme
>>1355993
*cough*
Depends on the gunner using them.
>>1348515
more range HAHA
>>1350916
The yeoman system allowed the English army to raise large contingents of well-armed bowmen en masse whenever they needed them. No other society in Europe even had a class like the yeoman, who were essentially middle class farmers instead of the large aristocrats ruling over dirt poor peasants (not that those did not exist in England.)
>>1356126
Middle Class is stretching it, Lincolnshire records indicate the "middle class" peasant was a virgater or half virgater (15-30 acres of land) while Yeomans generally had at least 80-100 acres of land. Their income 5-10 pounds was almost a quarter or half that of a man-at-arms. I reckon they would be in the top 10 or 5% of the income scale.
So yeah they are Middle class in the sense that a modern six figure salary lawyer is middle class.
As for other countries, Northern France and the Low countries had a similar group of rich farmers. Hence the Duke being able to recruit archers there.
What if the mongols got crossbows? would they become even more unstoppable and recreate the ancient finnish empire?
>>1356196
I meant middle class in the same way as people nowadays talk about the african middle class, which is substantially wealthier than most of the population. They were the upper class of commoners, if you will.
>similar group of rich farmers
I was wrong, thanks for the information. You are truly a knowledgeable and helpful individual. Thank you sincerely.
>>1356333
Sorry man I am still a bit sleepy and just typed as I went.
>>1355701
Yes you fucking moron. If it couldn't no one would use that.
>>1356308
They did have crossbows. They had Chink & Muslim Infantry after all.
>>1349161
A crossbow still requires upper body strength to draw and it's harder on your back since you had to bend down until they invented fancy windlass mechanisms.
>>1350885
>late medieval armies had a very high amount of people, who weren't knights, in full plate.
fuck off what are you even basing this on?
full plate was EXPENSIVE m8
>>1357137
Nope. Claw hooks on the belt mean you just have to do squats.
>>1356126
The German states were absolutely full of wealthy city dwellers with good weapons and armor. So was italy.
>>1355983
...Because it's much, much better for killing armored men at close ranges, much better for skirmishing or sieges, and works better with pavises, meaning your expensive soldiers don't die.
The crossbow in a complicated weapon, you can't just hand them out to morons for a campaign, they'll break them, or severely weaken them through neglect and misuse. Italians were well known for their professional and semi professional crossbowmen, and the french fucking loved hiring them.
>>1356396
t. retarded fuck who doesn't know how potential energy in springs work
>>1350971
Except that's demonstratably false, you retard.
The professional forces of the Byzantines were NOT fucking training cadres, they were field armies that existed solely to act as the empires hammers.
This was true even as they armed, trained, and fielded frontier forces made up of part timers from the farms and cities.
The fucking professional legions did not exist to rain the citizenry, at all. They never did this. Ever. Not once.
The household troops of various lords did not train peasantry in the event of war, they mustered, already existing townsmen mustered in their pre-formed and organized militia units, anyone form the country obliged ot serve showed up, and mercenaries were hired to supplement it all. They didn't all fucking wander off and start training random people to fight, your lands would be a smoking ruin before you were done.
Later period standing forces didn't train random fucks either. The new model army... fought. The gendarmes would kill you if you asked them to train commoners. The landschnekts were formed as needed, and didn't wander around raising other companies.
You're retarded, and need to stop making shit up.
>>1358380
Not him but if a farmer wanted to become a soldier could he do it or was he stuck on his farm forever?
>>1358448
Get weapons, go find someone who wanted fighting men.
Being skilled would help. If you're some pissant dirt farmer with a shirt, a knife, and no training, you're fucked for most of history. You'd be a waste of food and money.
yoemans
>>1352524
We have actual documents dictating the funds accumulated for these campaigns. Which include payments for troops.
>>1356126
>No other society in Europe even had a class like the yeoman, who were essentially middle class farmers instead of the large aristocrats ruling over dirt poor peasants
you're wrong in that. sweden had a system where any farm that equipped one man with an armour and a horse to fight in king's army became free of all taxes.
>>1360865
Woah some irrelevant snownigger shithole where people lived in mud huts and worshipped Zulu Kabulu jizz god had that system how good to know.
>>1360887
what? i just corrected the false claim that english yeomanry was some kind of unique system in europe. details might have been little different but concept is exactly same. they're class of free men who are not nobility nor professional soldiers but wealthy men that do military service for some privileges over ordinary farmers.
>>1358227
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Hym_r409g
>>1357154
France had about 90.000 gentry families each of which could provide a fully armored men-at-arms.
In practice it seems France could reliable put 10.000-25.000 fully armored men in the field.
