| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Fri 11 Apr, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Helge B. wrote: | | The mixture should give the formation some versatility. Sword&Buckler against enemy pike in close combat and halberdiers against cavalry which manage to break through. |
I still don't think that it'd be necessary to have the two different types of troops to have the required versatility. Like I've said before, they fulfilled largely the same tactical roles--and the difference between the two didn't seem to have been big enough to merit the inclusion of both. But then, I may be a heretic because I don't believe Machiavelli's assertion that rodeleros crawled under the pikes to hack at the Swiss pikemen's legs and bellies. Instead, I favor the interpretation that the rodeleros occasionally worked against pikes when their commander was skillful enough to combine them with the use of broken terrain or field fortifications that would break up the pike formations and expose the latter's soft unarmored core, which would have been as vulnerable to halberds as two swords.
[quote]The two screens of crossbowmen (mtd. and foot) are to work in stationary position allowing a maximum of missiles to be shot at the same time. The en haye formation of the lancers should have several gaps allowing the crossbowmen to retreat.
Sounds too complicated. Do you want to maximize missile power, or to use it to prepare the way for a charge? If the former, why bother with having lancers at all? If the latter, a stationary screen simply wouldn't work--you need something mobile and flexible enough to move around along with the lancers and shoot at whatever they were going to charge.
| Quote: | | The mtd. crossbowmen used a skirmishers in caracole manner should lure/force the enemy to advance. The basic tactical idea is to geht the enemy into shooting range of the crossbows inflicting as much missile casualties as possible before getting into close combat. |
It only gets even more confusing to me. How do you shoot in a rotating formation without getting into effective range beforehand? And if you're not already within effective range, why bother to shoot at all?
| Quote: | | Still I think that at 50m or less heavy crossbows can inflict enough casualites even on barded horses causing the cavalry charge to loose its momentum so that it can be repelled by an even thin pike screen. Especially the neck of the horses were mostly only protected by mail, which could be pierced by heavy crossbow bolts most of the time. |
Find an example of such a battle where it happened with crossbows rather than firearms. You're not going to convince me otherwise.
| Quote: | | That is something which always wondered me about pike&shot formations. If the missile part is placed in a seperate sleeve it has to retreat earlier if charged by enemy cavarly as if it would have to when placed behind a pike screen. How can the pike protect them if they stand next to them and not in front? |
*shrugs* If you're not satisfied with the answers you got in the "pike and shot" thread, I guess I won't be able to help you much. But, incidentally, I've just asked a question in this board that might have a bearing on the matter.
Now, there's one thing I really forgot to mention: if I remember correctly, 16th-century pike formations were arrayed in great depth not to resist a frontal attack by horse, but one by opposing foot which would have been arrayed in a similarly deep formation. Against their horse, their concern was not the ability to repel a frontal attack but security against a flank attack, since the strongly Neoclassical tactics of the times called for the horse to drive off enemy horse and then to charge to foot from the flank, not from the front. In fact, I think a statistical analysis would reveal a far greater number of flank attacks by horse than frontal ones. So you need not concern to much with repelling a frontal cavalry charge--rather, think about what the formation would have to do against enemy foot in front and enemy horse on the flanks.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Apr, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette wrote,
Taybugha al-"Ashrafi--a medieval Syrian archer--shows a pair of hooks suspended from a shoulder harness, which his book says could be used to reload a crossbown on horseback, even on the move. Some scholars think that the style and content of the text in this section is inconsistent with the rest of Taybugha's work, however, and believe it to be an apocryphal addition from a later copyist or commentator. I'm quite skeptical myself about the practicality of the technique, especially in a medieval Syrian culture where it would have been more reasonable to find a good horse archer than to instruct an untrained man in the complexities of loading such a crossbow on horseback."
Amen! I can ride a horse and I can probably load a crossbow but doing both at the same time? Well, if I tried it it would look like... monkeys and footballs come to mind! Really, trying to visualize riding a horse and reload a crossbow while other guys are trying top kill me makes me nauseous.
"Taybugha al-"Ashrafi--a medieval Syrian archer..." Lafayette, what can I say? You are one of the few people I know whose taste in reading is even stranger than mine! I love it!
You said, "Conversely, Helge seems to be speaking of a roughly Western European setting, and such a setting would probably have lacked the social institutions needed to produce and maintain sufficiently large numbers of horse archers to make a significant presence on the battlefield."
OK, if you say so. I think the attrition rate on horses and men while teaching them to ride and shoot a crossbow would be so staggering you'd run out of horses or lunatics or both! What suicidal maniac would you find to try to train people to do this? I wouldn't want to come within a mile of the training ground on a bet. As I'm writing this I'm imagining a recruiter trying to sell young men on the idea of being horse crossbowmen!
You wrote, "Yes and no. I have no difficulty believing that the Mongols could have made bows as heavy as 150 or 160 pounds in draw weight, but such bows would only have been used on foot. Horse archers all over the world used much lighter bows than what their foot counterparts had, usually ranging between 50 and 80 pounds or so. Even 100 pounds would have been quite an exceptional weight for a horse bow."
Yes, I would have much the same opinion except I was meandering around Barnes & Noble, my home away from home, and I came across a book about Mongol warfare! No offense meant to Mongols living or dead but I am constantly amazed at what people write books about! Well, anyone who knows me knows I had to at least skim it and it said that the bows they used were as powerful as I said. I agree it must take some incredible training to do that even with a thumb ring. I would think that if they could actually do it, an arrow with a bodkin point from a 100 or 150 pound draw weight bow could be expected to piece plate mail, don't you?
Fun stuff, thanks,
Ken Speed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Apr, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | | OK, if you say so. I think the attrition rate on horses and men while teaching them to ride and shoot a crossbow would be so staggering you'd run out of horses or lunatics or both! What suicidal maniac would you find to try to train people to do this? I wouldn't want to come within a mile of the training ground on a bet. As I'm writing this I'm imagining a recruiter trying to sell young men on the idea of being horse crossbowmen! |
It could work, actually. I can shoot a crossbow on horseback with decent accuracy over a range of 50 yards or so, even at the gallop. When it comes to loading, though, I've never tried doing it on horseback except at the halt--where the actions are not likely to be disturbed by any movement greater than some minor frisking on the horse's part. So I think it's still possible to employ mounted crossbowmen without dismounting them by having them loose just one shot before either retiring to the rear or charging against the enemy. Having them engage in a sustained missile exchange would be...argh.
| Quote: | | Yes, I would have much the same opinion except I was meandering around Barnes & Noble, my home away from home, and I came across a book about Mongol warfare! No offense meant to Mongols living or dead but I am constantly amazed at what people write books about! Well, anyone who knows me knows I had to at least skim it and it said that the bows they used were as powerful as I said. I agree it must take some incredible training to do that even with a thumb ring. |
No, it doesn't take incredible training--just long and dedicated practice. I personally know at least one man (still quite alive, young, and healthy today) who can draw a 120-pound bow with a thumb draw, and I'm sure he's not the only one in the world. Still, both modern practitioners and old manuals agree that such heavy bows are meant only for use on foot and that horse bows should be made to a much lower draw weight. Note that it wouldn't have been entirely unusual for horse archers in some cultures to carry two or more bows, at least one for shooting on foot and one for horseback use. Moreover, almost all the horse archer cultures I've read about have been known to use their horse archers in dismounted manner at one time or another. (For some, like the Mamluks, this ability to shoot and fight dismounted was a central feature of their tactical doctrine, at least during their medieval days of glory.)
| Quote: | | I would think that if they could actually do it, an arrow with a bodkin point from a 100 or 150 pound draw weight bow could be expected to piece plate mail, don't you? |
Don't ask me. Ask people with more knowledge about armor vs. archery tests--say, Dan Howard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Apr, 2008 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Helge B. wrote: | | This is what I thought how a formation could look like. I would like to know if you think this could also work in a realistic scenario and what would be the weak spots. |
Ah. Sorry. There's one extremely important question I forgot to ask: what is the tactical doctrine for this formation supposed to be? In other words, how is the army supposed to maneuver and act in an ideal situation? Is it a primarily offensive system, or a defensive one? Does it follow the general 16th-century Neoclassical philosophy that tried to emulate Alexander the Great by pinning down the enemy with the foot in the center and attacking with the horse on the wings? Or does it follow an entirely different grand tactical idea altogether? The key in building tactical systems like this is not to find the perfect formation (which simply doesn't exist) but to decide on one or two fundamental tactical goals and design the system so that it would be able to fulfill those in a satisfactory manner. It will cause weaknesses in the areas that the design doesn't concentrate upon, of course, but this can be mitigated by a competent commander who can shape the enemy's actions so that they'd allow the system to fight in its preferred and most effective manner. Trying to be good at everything at once is a good recipe for a tactical disaster because it'll render the system unable to concentrate enough resources on the tactical factors that matter here and now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Werner Stiegler
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Apr, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
It could work, actually. I can shoot a crossbow on horseback with decent accuracy over a range of 50 yards or so, even at the gallop. When it comes to loading, though, I've never tried doing it on horseback except at the halt--where the actions are not likely to be disturbed by any movement greater than some minor frisking on the horse's part. So I think it's still possible to employ mounted crossbowmen without dismounting them by having them loose just one shot before either retiring to the rear or charging against the enemy. Having them engage in a sustained missile exchange would be...argh. |
That was the theory put forward in one of the german Kriegsbücher concerning the use of mounted crossbowmen - let them shoot once and attack with swords then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Apr, 2008 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Werner Stiegler wrote: | | That was the theory put forward in one of the german Kriegsbücher concerning the use of mounted crossbowmen - let them shoot once and attack with swords then. |
My point exactly.  It's not my theory at all--the idea is way, way older than me--although it's certainly the one I deem the most plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Apr, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
[Lafayette wrote,
"It could work, actually. I can shoot a crossbow on horseback with decent accuracy over a range of 50 yards or so, even at the gallop."
That alone, seems like quite a feat to me! Did it take a lot of practice?
"When it comes to loading, though, I've never tried doing it on horseback except at the halt--where the actions are not likely to be disturbed by any movement greater than some minor frisking on the horse's part. So I think it's still possible to employ mounted crossbowmen without dismounting them by having them loose just one shot before either retiring to the rear or charging against the enemy. Having them engage in a sustained missile exchange would be...argh."
Yes, I agree, loading would definitely be the fly in the ointment. I would think "at the halt" in a battlefield situation" would be a place I wouldn't want to be and I would suspect that after a charge with the smell of blood and wounded horses and men that the horses would be nearly out of their minds, their instinct would be telling them to keep moving, trying to get them to stand still long enough to reload a crossbow would be to borrow your phrase, "argh!". So then the choice is between a crossbow armed cavalryman who can fire one shot or a mounted bowman. I noticed someone said that the crossbow/cavalry was used but I have to say I still like mounted archers better as long as their arrows are capable of penetrating the armor of their foes.
"No, it doesn't take incredible training--just long and dedicated practice. I personally know at least one man (still quite alive, young, and healthy today) who can draw a 120-pound bow with a thumb draw, and I'm sure he's not the only one in the world. Still, both modern practitioners and old manuals agree that such heavy bows are meant only for use on foot and that horse bows should be made to a much lower draw weight. Note that it wouldn't have been entirely unusual for horse archers in some cultures to carry two or more bows, at least one for shooting on foot and one for horseback use. Moreover, almost all the horse archer cultures I've read about have been known to use their horse archers in dismounted manner at one time or another. (For some, like the Mamluks, this ability to shoot and fight dismounted was a central feature of their tactical doctrine, at least during their medieval days of glory.)"
Lafayette! My word! Don't you think that training and practice are virtually synonymous? Are you maintaining that your friend who is capable of drawing a 120 pound bow on foot would be incapable of drawing, for example, a 100 pound bow on horseback? Perhaps with some training and/or practice? Truly, I don't know, I was sharing something I recently read. As I said I happened upon the book I mentioned at Barnes & Noble, I skimmed it and set it aside because Mongolian strategies and tactics aren't a great interest of mine right now. Look, when I'm there again, which will probably be sooner than it should be, I'll look for the book and get you the title and author. OK?
Ken Speed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helge B.
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
What would be the best way to set up crossbowmen with hvy. windlass crossbows in order to get a maximum frequency of volleys? How many would that be in a minute?
My idea of shooting, kneeing, reloading and standing up never seem to have been used in history. Maybe it is too complicated to use .
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Helge B. wrote: | What would be the best way to set up crossbowmen with hvy. windlass crossbows in order to get a maximum frequency of volleys? How many would that be in a minute?
My idea of shooting, kneeing, reloading and standing up never seem to have been used in history. Maybe it is too complicated to use . |
Maybe historically correct, maybe not ? But I would pair up two crossbowman together and have one do the loading while the other shoots and alternate who does what when the one doing the windlass work started to get tired.
Alternatively I would have two or more crossbows per crossbowman and have helpers doing the winding/cocking for them.
As well these helpers could carry large quantities of quarrels and could be available to use pikes or shorter spears & shields if the enemy got too close. ( Or armed as light to medium skirmishers with swords, axes, javelins, slings etc .... )
With the very heavy siege type crossbows being among the most powerful types but also the slowest types to load I would abandon the idea of using these for high volumes of mass shooting, but would use these more as " sniper/marksmen using fire aimed at specific high value targets at medium to close range and as " anti-armour " specialists.
For volume fire the less powerful but faster to load, but still powerful goat's-foot loaded crossbows, would make up 80% to 90% of my crossbowmen: These could also be paired for quicker fire but these " pairs " could be used in layered groups i.e. one could have 3 lines of these pairs each firing in turn and producing closely paced volley: Some fine tuning of the details on how to do this best would need to be thought out and them drilled for maximum efficiency.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Mon 14 Apr, 2008 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Helge B.
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I am still think in terms of a pre-gunpowder scenario. Without firearms I suppose that there would have been a more widespread use of armour. This would lead to the need for more armour-piercing missile weapons. A role which only a heavy crossbow/arabeleste could perform. A goatsfoot crossbow would be no more stronger than a longbow, which proofed to be pretty ineffective when used against heavily armoured infantry cavalry.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Helge B. wrote: | | I am still think in terms of a pre-gunpowder scenario. Without firearms I suppose that there would have been a more widespread use of armour. This would lead to the need for more armour-piercing missile weapons. A role which only a heavy crossbow/arabeleste could perform. A goatsfoot crossbow would be no more stronger than a longbow, which proofed to be pretty ineffective when used against heavily armoured infantry cavalry. |
Not sure how the goat's-foot crossbow compares with the longbow but I think a draw of 350 to 450 pounds is possible with the
goat's-foot ? Now, the short draw length compared to the longbow does mean that this higher draw weight is not equivalent to a longbow with a 350 to 450 pound draw.
The velocity of the quarrel isn't much higher than the arrow of the bow but the mass of the projectile should be higher.
I think the heavy siege crossbows could have draws in the thousands of pounds: So they would be much more powerful.
If the faster but weaker crossbows are still powerful enough to be effective some of the time they have a certain advantage in larger numbers even if on a quarrel by quarrel basis they have lower odds of piecing armour.
A mix of both types I still think would be a good idea unless only the heavier crossbows would be effective: The problem for you is to get an accurate idea of the relative true effectiveness of each type before deciding the right mix of light or heavy crossbows.
Oh, the lighter crossbows might still be useful for skirmishing, sentry work and against lighter armed opponents as not all of the enemy would be fully covered by " proofed " armour.
Obviously we have to give it our best " guesstimates " based on logic and the best information we can find to confirm or contradict theories. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Mon 14 Apr, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Helge asked, "What would be the best way to set up crossbowmen with hvy. windlass crossbows in order to get a maximum frequency of volleys? How many would that be in a minute?"
Helge and Jean, Do you guys agree that it would be a good idea to keep these crossbowmen alive long enough to reload and shoot again? I assume the answer is,"Yes!" so why don't we provide them with pavaisses (SP?) so they're not standing out in the open while they're busy crossbow wrestling? How would it be if there were three man teams? Two crossbowmen and a loader/pavaisse guy to help keep the other two in the game? I admit this blows Helge's formation idea out of the water but given the load time of a heavy crossbow maybe its the way to go? Would you have to deploy these teams with pikemen for their protection? I can sort of imagine this formation working but it would be vulnerable on the flanks I also think this formation would move excruciatingly slowly.
Just an idea,
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Apr, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | | That alone, seems like quite a feat to me! Did it take a lot of practice? |
Three consecutive days of going at it repeatedly? It should be noted, though, that I had also practiced horsemanship and crossbow-shooting independently of each other long before that. The target was quite big, too--it was a FITA standard 120cm-diameter archery target, and my definition of "decent accuracy" was simply being able to put all the bolts within the entirety of that huge target.
| Quote: | | Lafayette! My word! Don't you think that training and practice are virtually synonymous? |
You said "incredible" training, while a heavy dose of training is certainly not incredible to anyone who has actually experienced how hard archery is to master even without the additional requirement of practicing it on horseback.
| Quote: | | Are you maintaining that your friend who is capable of drawing a 120 pound bow on foot would be incapable of drawing, for example, a 100 pound bow on horseback? Perhaps with some training and/or practice? |
He might be able to, but I don't think he would. The tradition to use lighter bow for horse archers is there for good reason. For one thing, you can only use your upper body when shooting on horseback, which prevents you from employing the hugely powerful hip, leg, and lower back muscles to assist your draw. For another, there's a common tendency among Eastern archery styles to shift the weight towards the rear leg when drawing heavier bows and/or raising the bow to shoot at a high angle, and this habit--built through years of practice--might show through and wreck the horse archer's "Look Ma! No hands!" handling of his horse if he's forced to draw a particularly heavy bow.
| Quote: | | Truly, I don't know, I was sharing something I recently read. As I said I happened upon the book I mentioned at Barnes & Noble, I skimmed it and set it aside because Mongolian strategies and tactics aren't a great interest of mine right now. |
Don't just trust secondary sources like that right away. Go check with people who have actually done much research into horseback archery traditions, such as Kassai Lajos (his website is here, I think) or Stephen Selby (who runs the Asian Traditional Archery Research Network (ATARN).
| Quote: | | Look, when I'm there again, which will probably be sooner than it should be, I'll look for the book and get you the title and author. OK? |
That'd be great; but do take the time to look into the book and see whether it actually mentions the Mongols using the 150-pound bows on horseback, since I strongly doubt the book actually does that. It's probably just mentioning the maximum draw weights of the Mongol bows, which could and did go that high for bows meant for use on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Apr, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Helge B. wrote: | | What would be the best way to set up crossbowmen with hvy. windlass crossbows in order to get a maximum frequency of volleys? How many would that be in a minute? |
Build a set of field fortifications in front of them and you won't need to worry about how much time they'd need to reload. It'll also keep horsemen off their necks, because I don't think I've heard of gendarmes who were stupid enough to charge headlong into a ditch and up a rampart....
(Yes, the French and allied cavalry did that against the Raevski redoubt at Borodino, but the place had been pretty much leveled by the French artillery beforehand and the most successful part of the charge was the wings that lapped around the redoubt to strike it in the open rear--not to mention that the horsemen suffered horrendous casualties in the process).
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Maybe historically correct, maybe not ? But I would pair up two crossbowman together and have one do the loading while the other shoots and alternate who does what when the one doing the windlass work started to get tired. |
This is exactly what the medieval Europeans did with their heavier crossbowmen, in fact, as I've mentioned in my blog.
| Quote: | Alternatively I would have two or more crossbows per crossbowman and have helpers doing the winding/cocking for them.
As well these helpers could carry large quantities of quarrels and could be available to use pikes or shorter spears & shields if the enemy got too close. ( Or armed as light to medium skirmishers with swords, axes, javelins, slings etc .... ) |
The Chinese five-rank system operated precisely on this basis--the first one or two ranks shot, the other three reloaded, and all of them were armed with polearms. There are strong indications, though, that this was meant to be an aggressive rather than a defensive weapon, and that the crossbowmen might have been supposed to charge immediately after they had emptied all of their quarrels into the enemy's ranks.
| Helge B. wrote: | | I am still think in terms of a pre-gunpowder scenario. Without firearms I suppose that there would have been a more widespread use of armour. This would lead to the need for more armour-piercing missile weapons. A role which only a heavy crossbow/arabeleste could perform. A goatsfoot crossbow would be no more stronger than a longbow, which proofed to be pretty ineffective when used against heavily armoured infantry cavalry. |
Try to think in terms other than personal missile weapons. Your formation has no obligation whatsoever to derive its armor-piercing missile power from massed missile contingents; in fact, I think it'd probably be more plausible if the formation had fewer crossbowmen dispersed into skirmishing groups, while for bringing down armored opponents at a range it would mount ballista-like weapons on tall mounts that could shoot over the heads of standing friendly soldiers and thus could be placed behind the foot without hindering its effectiveness. This was also the approach that Arrian's Romans took when they arrayed themselves to face the Alans--they used light artillery on particularly tall or raised mountings.
| Ken Speed wrote: | | so why don't we provide them with pavaisses (SP?) so they're not standing out in the open while they're busy crossbow wrestling? How would it be if there were three man teams? Two crossbowmen and a loader/pavaisse guy to help keep the other two in the game? I admit this blows Helge's formation idea out of the water but given the load time of a heavy crossbow maybe its the way to go? Would you have to deploy these teams with pikemen for their protection? I can sort of imagine this formation working but it would be vulnerable on the flanks I also think this formation would move excruciatingly slowly. |
Well, as I've mentioned in my blog post about combined formations, this was exactly the approach chosen by the medieval Italians and several other European powers who had seen them in action, including the Crusader states on some occasions. The first rank held off the enemy with pavise and long spear, the second shot, while the third carried a spare crossbow and reloaded for the second. You don't need to deploy the formation with additional pike/spear protection because that protection is already part of the package, and flank security would of necessity be provided by friendly horse or a convenient piece of terrain. And of course, the formation doesn't have to move all that slowly. Just get rid of the idea that it'd have to shoot on the move, and you'll see that it'd perform well enough by having two separate modes--packed-up for movement and deployed for shooting.
Once again the objection is that this formation saw greatest use in the 12th, 13th, and early 14th centuries, when the opposing warriors would not have had as much armor as in the 16th-century setting Helge has envisioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Fri 18 Apr, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lafayette you wrote in reference to using a crossbow while on horseback that it took, "Three consecutive days of going at it repeatedly? It should be noted, though, that I had also practiced horsemanship and crossbow-shooting independently of each other long before that. The target was quite big, too--it was a FITA standard 120cm-diameter archery target, and my definition of "decent accuracy" was simply being able to put all the bolts within the entirety of that huge target."
You then took issue with a statement I made about the level of training and practice required of a mounted crossbowman when you wrote, "You said "incredible" training, while a heavy dose of training is certainly not incredible to anyone who has actually experienced how hard archery is to master even without the additional requirement of practicing it on horseback."
I must say I find it interesting that by your own admission it took you three days of practice to , "put all the bolts within the entirety of that huge target." and yet you disagree with my assertion that becoming a skilled mounted crossbowman would take an incredible amount of training and practice.
I asked, "Are you maintaining that your friend who is capable of drawing a 120 pound bow on foot would be incapable of drawing, for example, a 100 pound bow on horseback? Perhaps with some training and/or practice? to which you responded, "He might be able to, but I don't think he would. The tradition to use lighter bow for horse archers is there for good reason. For one thing, you can only use your upper body when shooting on horseback, which prevents you from employing the hugely powerful hip, leg, and lower back muscles to assist your draw. For another, there's a common tendency among Eastern archery styles to shift the weight towards the rear leg when drawing heavier bows and/or raising the bow to shoot at a high angle, and this habit--built through years of practice--might show through and wreck the horse archer's "Look Ma! No hands!" handling of his horse if he's forced to draw a particularly heavy bow."
Training to use one's upper body in isolation is not uncommon in the martial arts. In Aikido we spent agonizing hours practicing techniques from the position called "seiza" the traditional kneeling position of Japan. It builds, in short order, amazing upper body movement and strength. I really see no reason why Eastern archers wouldn't be capable of making a similar adaptation. You also maintain that , "...there's a common tendency among Eastern archery styles to shift the weight towards the rear leg when drawing heavier bows and/or raising the bow to shoot at a high angle..." So let me see if I understand, you're saying that Asian archers could throw fastballs but they weren't smart enough or adaptable enough to throw a curve ball, interesting. Arrogant and condescending to Asian archers perhaps but interesting nonetheless.
I said, "Truly, I don't know, I was sharing something I recently read. As I said I happened upon the book I mentioned at Barnes & Noble, I skimmed it and set it aside because Mongolian strategies and tactics aren't a great interest of mine right now." in providing a source for the assertion that Mongolian used heavier bows than was thought. You took it upon yourself to caution me as follows, "Don't just trust secondary sources like that right away. Go check with people who have actually done much research into horseback archery traditions, such as Kassai Lajos ..."
Frankly, you are truly the last person I would expect to caution me or anyone about suspect sources, in another thread you quoted Wikipedia as a reliable source about Japanese martial arts. Wikipedia is a handy source for a quick reference but it has been proven to be easily slanted and not altogether reliable.
What it comes down to quite simply is this, I read what I read if you don't like it that's your problem. I told you and the other readers here what I read honestly and truthfully. You can complain about it and disagree with it as much as you want, it is still what I read. If you want to disagree with it take it up with the author of the book, I don't really care if they used squirt guns and pea shooters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | Lafayette you wrote in reference to using a crossbow while on horseback that it took, "Three consecutive days of going at it repeatedly? It should be noted, though, that I had also practiced horsemanship and crossbow-shooting independently of each other long before that. The target was quite big, too--it was a FITA standard 120cm-diameter archery target, and my definition of "decent accuracy" was simply being able to put all the bolts within the entirety of that huge target."
You then took issue with a statement I made about the level of training and practice required of a mounted crossbowman when you wrote, "You said "incredible" training, while a heavy dose of training is certainly not incredible to anyone who has actually experienced how hard archery is to master even without the additional requirement of practicing it on horseback."
I must say I find it interesting that by your own admission it took you three days of practice to , "put all the bolts within the entirety of that huge target." and yet you disagree with my assertion that becoming a skilled mounted crossbowman would take an incredible amount of training and practice. |
Three days of practice plus years of prior training in horsemanship and crossbow use...well, yes, that's "long," but hardly "incredible," unless you're saying "incredible" in the figurative sense of "not something that most modern office-goers can afford the time and effort to properly learn."
| Quote: | | Training to use one's upper body in isolation is not uncommon in the martial arts. In Aikido we spent agonizing hours practicing techniques from the position called "seiza" the traditional kneeling position of Japan. It builds, in short order, amazing upper body movement and strength. I really see no reason why Eastern archers wouldn't be capable of making a similar adaptation. You also maintain that , "...there's a common tendency among Eastern archery styles to shift the weight towards the rear leg when drawing heavier bows and/or raising the bow to shoot at a high angle..." So let me see if I understand, you're saying that Asian archers could throw fastballs but they weren't smart enough or adaptable enough to throw a curve ball, interesting. Arrogant and condescending to Asian archers perhaps but interesting nonetheless. |
The problem being that I am an Asian archer who practices an Asian tradition of foot and horseback archery , and I know first-hand that Asian horse archery traditions simply don't use the heaviest bows available to their culture for the reasons I've described. I'm not being condescending or arrogant towards them--I'm just describing what they (and I) actually do and the reasons behind them.
If anything, I could construe your statement as being "arrogant and condescending" for thinking that Asian horseback archery traditions are somehow wrong for not using the heaviest bows available in their arsenal. But I choose not to--I merely invite you to come to China, Mongolia, or Turkey, where Asian archery traditions either have survived to the present day or are in the process of being resurrected by well-researched groups of enthusiasts. I believe they would be all too willing to show that Asian horse archers use much lighter bows than the maximum draw-weights theoretically and practically available to their culture, and moreover they would be glad to explain the reasons in greater detail than whatever I can do within the limits of this forum's post lengths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Mon 07 Oct, 2013 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | Four ranks is pretty thin for a pike block expected to face armoured cavalry. There are lots of cases of armoured cavalry breaking through lines and columns of pike or spear-and-shield infantry (see Northalleron, 1138 CE, or several of the sixteenth-century battles in Oman's Art of War in the Sixteenth Century.) |
While at the same time we have instances of thin lines of spearmen successfully resisting cavalry charges, such as the battle of Bremule and possibly the battle of Bouvines. The formation, after all, was not supposed to stop the horses upon impact, but rather to scare them off with the appearance of an unbroken wall of shields and spear-points. It would seem that thin, long formations were the medieval norm for facing cavalry because it provided enough frontage to give some sense of safety against flanking maneuvers, whereas deeper formations (especially pike-armed ones) were meant to be offensive formations for use against infantry.
| Quote: | | After all, crossbow bolts aren't nearly as frightening to the horses as stinky, noisy, fire-belching muskets. |
Quite true as long as the infantry could hold their volleys until the charge approached within effective range of their missiles. Otherwise, the smoke from a firearm volley fired at too long a distance might actually mask the infantry formation and allow the horsemen to delude the horses into thinking that they were just going to pass through a thick bank of smoke rather than crashing head-on into a solid formation!
(And remember that people soon found ways to accustom horses to the noise of gunpowder weapons--which wasn't all that different from accustoming them to just about any other sort of loud noise, bright flash, or thick smoke.) |
I dig up ages old posts once, I apologize for it, but it seems all interesting topics were already discussed, when I had little knowledge about them. 
Im interested in battle of Bremule. Reading, what is supposed to be english translation of battle description from orderic vitalis, he states norman-english army left 100 knight mounted, with others on foot. There was no indication, or clue regarding their formation, so is there other source describing this battle, that states dismounted men fought in thin line? Also, if it isnt mistranslation, it mentions 80 french knight charging in disorder in first wave, being mostly, or wholly captured because all/most of their horses were quickly killed. So would sole dismounted component of anglo-norman force really be so instrumental in how quickly and decisely a victory was won? Wasnt it rather the fact, that defenders chose combined arms approach, with dismounted knights to absorb the impact and mounted component to deal the decisive blow?
Also, are there other examples from history, where it is stated explicitly, or vaguely, that infantry without any missile support was able to kill big quantities of horses in little time, when charged by cavalry, without significant losses to themselves? (I remember one passage from a chronicle of crusaders charging some muslim militia losing tens of horses, but I cant find it anymore. But it involved some lamentation and promise of lost horses being refunded, which took more space, than actual description of fighting. )
Basic idea is, if they failed to break them, they would keep out of reach and harm, so they either were so reckless, or they were maybe pressed and surrounded by both cavalry and infantry at the same time and horses were either almost unarmoured and not taken into consideration, while men spared each other from death, or serious injury, partly because of being basically neighbors, or relatives maybe (hence severe losses of horses, but virtually zero losses among men), or whole scene was simply overblown by chronicler. (Would he be actual eyewitness of the battle? Is there something in sources to answer this question?)
|
|
 |
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Mon 07 Oct, 2013 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Sean Manning wrote: | | Four ranks is pretty thin for a pike block expected to face armoured cavalry. There are lots of cases of armoured cavalry breaking through lines and columns of pike or spear-and-shield infantry (see Northalleron, 1138 CE, or several of the sixteenth-century battles in Oman's Art of War in the Sixteenth Century.) |
While at the same time we have instances of thin lines of spearmen successfully resisting cavalry charges, such as the battle of Bremule and possibly the battle of Bouvines. The formation, after all, was not supposed to stop the horses upon impact, but rather to scare them off with the appearance of an unbroken wall of shields and spear-points. It would seem that thin, long formations were the medieval norm for facing cavalry because it provided enough frontage to give some sense of safety against flanking maneuvers, whereas deeper formations (especially pike-armed ones) were meant to be offensive formations for use against infantry.
| Quote: | | After all, crossbow bolts aren't nearly as frightening to the horses as stinky, noisy, fire-belching muskets. |
Quite true as long as the infantry could hold their volleys until the charge approached within effective range of their missiles. Otherwise, the smoke from a firearm volley fired at too long a distance might actually mask the infantry formation and allow the horsemen to delude the horses into thinking that they were just going to pass through a thick bank of smoke rather than crashing head-on into a solid formation!
(And remember that people soon found ways to accustom horses to the noise of gunpowder weapons--which wasn't all that different from accustoming them to just about any other sort of loud noise, bright flash, or thick smoke.) |
I dig up ages old posts once, I apologize for it, but it seems all interesting topics were already discussed, when I had little knowledge about them.
Im interested in battle of Bremule. Reading, what is supposed to be english translation of battle description from orderic vitalis, he states norman-english army left 100 knight mounted, with others on foot. There was no indication, or clue regarding their formation, so is there other source describing this battle, that states dismounted men fought in thin line? Also, if it isnt mistranslation, it mentions 80 french knight charging in disorder in first wave, being mostly, or wholly captured because all/most of their horses were quickly killed. So would sole dismounted component of anglo-norman force really be so instrumental in how quickly and decisely a victory was won? Wasnt it rather the fact, that defenders chose combined arms approach, with dismounted knights to absorb the impact and mounted component to deal the decisive blow?
Also, are there other examples from history, where it is stated explicitly, or vaguely, that infantry without any missile support was able to kill big quantities of horses in little time, when charged by cavalry, without significant losses to themselves? (I remember one passage from a chronicle of crusaders charging some muslim militia losing tens of horses, but I cant find it anymore. But it involved some lamentation and promise of lost horses being refunded, which took more space, than actual description of fighting. )
Basic idea is, if they failed to break them, they would keep out of reach and harm, so they either were so reckless, or they were maybe pressed and surrounded by both cavalry and infantry at the same time and horses were either almost unarmoured and not taken into consideration, while men spared each other from death, or serious injury, partly because of being basically neighbors, or relatives maybe (hence severe losses of horses, but virtually zero losses among men), or whole scene was simply overblown by chronicler. (Would he be actual eyewitness of the battle? Is there something in sources to answer this question?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Janus
Location: Florida, USA Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Mon 07 Oct, 2013 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | Hi Dan
You wrote, "missed one thing. Railguns." Aren't they electro magnetic? Would you have steam driven generators?
You continued, "BTW, the original idea was no "gunpowder or other chemical missile propellants". So this includes modern explosives and I think would rule out anything with an internal combustion engine.
So, electrically powered tanks, with railguns and lasers and other directed energy things.
This basically describes a "Hammer's Slammers" book."
Why not steam powered tanks and cars and for that matter, believe it or not, airplanes! Yeah, look it up on the web, a guy in the thirties made steam powered planes. They were so quiet he could talk to people on the ground as he flew by! Steam powered cars were clocked at over 100 miles per hour when internal combustion powered cars couldn't even come close to that speed and they also regularly beat IC cars at hill climbs.
No one has mentioned air rifles. I understand that European armies had air rifle snipers. They had tanks that held air drawn from a central horse powered compressor. The air rifles were used by snipers and I believe that they were so feared, because they were so quiet, that an enemy soldier found with one was summarily killed. The only other item I'm aware of that was treated this way was bayonets with saw teeth on the top edge.
If they used steam and compressed air warfare wouldn't look much different than it did in WWI or the early days of WWII.
Ken Speed
Ken Speed |
The steam powered airplane you were referencing is an Abner Doble design. Abner Doble was a brilliant man who, with his brothers, took apart a wrecked White Steam car to make his own when they were just late teenagers! Abner was a brilliant man. He perfected efficient condensing flash tube boiler steam technology. His cars were gas fired by a spark plug and got up to pressure in about one minute and they had a mechanical system of contracting and expanding rods to turn the fire on and off automatically. I am not sure of the design of the air plane. I do know his steam cars were four cylinder engines, two compound motors to be specific with two high and low cylinders. Compound steam is rather interesting really. The steam enters through the high compression cylinder and then the spent steam enters into the larger low compression cylinder. The exhaust then makes to an oil separator. After the separator, it goes through an air cooled condenser, cooled by a steam turbine, and once condensed it goes back into the water tank.
The Doble airplane motor worked in this same fashion, though I am not sure of the cylinder arrangement. I'd have to guess a high speed multiple single acting cylinders as an airplane motor would have no need to reverse. It did 'work' but the condenser could not keep up with the demands of the motor and thus, it had a short flight time of about ten minutes from what I remember. A job like powering an aircraft is best left to an internal combustion engine. For cars however, steam makes a lot of sense. The Doble four cylinder double acting compound produced about 1000 ft pounds of torque at just over 2 rpm. Steam makes its power instantly as it is externally combusted. Jay Leno has a Doble Model E, formerly owned by Howard Hughes. I do apologize for derailing the topic. The only thing I love as much as arms and armor is STEAM  ! Whether it be a stationary, traction engine, cars, or a steam locomotive... even boats.. somewhat! Nothing runs as quiet nor produces the massive raw amount of torque and breathes fire at the same time like steam!
*Edit,
Wow I didn't realize this topic was a phoenix! My bad.
Newbie Sword collector
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Oct, 2013 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | I dig up ages old posts once, I apologize for it, but it seems all interesting topics were already discussed, when I had little knowledge about them. |
Well, nothing inherently wrong with that. I've changed many of my views since the original time of this discussion, however; for instance, I've become aware that Manchu heavy cavalry used very long and heavy bows for shooting at close ranges as they charged -- rather similar to some late-medieval European mounted crossbowmen, in fact, just even more aggressive.
| Quote: | | Im interested in battle of Bremule. Reading, what is supposed to be english translation of battle description from orderic vitalis, he states norman-english army left 100 knight mounted, with others on foot. There was no indication, or clue regarding their formation, so is there other source describing this battle, that states dismounted men fought in thin line? |
No, there's no specific mention of formation. Battlefield analysis of some other battles in this era (say, 12th-13th centuries) tend to indicate relatively shallow formations for infantry, however -- the comparison between numbers and frontage rarely result in lines more than three or four men deep -- and in the absence of any evidence for a deep formation (something like Liebrecht van Dormael's suggestion at Worringen, 1288, and that's for a mounted formation) it's safer to assume that the 400 dismounted English knights deployed in a relatively shallow formation.
| Quote: | | So would sole dismounted component of anglo-norman force really be so instrumental in how quickly and decisely a victory was won? Wasnt it rather the fact, that defenders chose combined arms approach, with dismounted knights to absorb the impact and mounted component to deal the decisive blow? |
No, and yes. In my opinion this battle is a nearly perfect illustration of how combined arms tended to win even at such an early phase of the Middle Ages, and it's likely that the English wouldn't have dismounted most of their knights to begin with if they hadn't had a plan to combine the staying power of the dismounted line with the counterattack potential of the mounted reserve. We can call it a medieval example of mobile defense since the intent was probably not to hold the piece of ground that the dismounted line was standing on, but rather to shape the enemy's movement so that the battle would proceed in a manner that would be favourable to the mounted reserve's counterattack.
Note that I wasn't using Bremule to illustrate any notion that infantry could "kill" cavalry quickly without missile support -- instead, I was using it to argue that the evidence favours the notion of medieval infantry formations deploying in broad and shallow lines when they had to hold their ground against cavalry, while on the other hand deep formations were generally used in an offensive capacity, particularly against enemy infantry (and before the mid-14th century or so it seems that it was cavalry that was more likely to deploy deep in medieval European battles, not infantry). In hindsight, I could have picked some more germane examples like Northallerton, Jaffa, or one of the early battles between the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Turks -- though virtually all of these battles also demonstrated the power of combined arms in their respective settings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic