It's long

Not him but are you saying it's not important to have a side-arm because they were barely used? You know you called him an idiot?

Archers had swords but how often did they fight in melee? Exactly. Side arms are not unimportant but they are not terribly crucial either. So fuck swords.

Fuck you

Fuck you too fucker go fuck yourself with a sword.

Thats actually kinda stupid. Do you plan to riposte 3 lines of halberds? Get with the times hipster

>Archers had swords but how often did they fight in melee?
Frequently, actually. Bows were rarely effective enough to stop a determined charge.

...

I expect he's not going to fight 3 lines of halberds alone.

So you wanna be a special crossbowman swordsman snowflake and bring this garbage butter knife while your lads fight with pole arms? I bet you're the kind of fuckwit who never buys defusal in CSGO.

There's nothing special snowflake about a crossbow and sword.

crossbow + shield

>Pre gunpowder guns
Black powder guns

Billhook > Halberd

>implying swords weren't the most common side-arm around and literally everyone was carrying one from knights to crossbowmen to pikemen to halberdiers

Utter and complete nonsense.

Plenty of sword wounds were found on historical battlefields. Swords were widely carried and widely depicted in medieval illustrations.

Just take a look at the scene in . The lance of the knight has been broken, so the first thing he does is draw the sword by his side. The halberdier also carries a sword, because he'll never know when the enemy closes in too much where his halberd will become too cumbersome.

Here we have a similar situation. I guess that halberdier is lucky to have his sword around.

This pikeman was not so lucky.

I wonder how often these maneuvers actually occured in reality.

I'd give one of my testicles to have video footage of an early modern battle.

How often they occurred is hard to tell, but the point is that they did occur (for that we have the aforementioned evidence) and thus people were concerned with the possibility of them occurring well enough to be prepared for them.

The images aren't really evidence that they occurred. They could easily be the fantasy of the artist.

The point is: there are lots of these depictions, from multiple parts of Europe over multiple centuries. And the amount of effort that went into producing the weapons, keeping them around with you all the time. People aren't that sentimental in war, they dismissed things that lost their practical worth quite eagerly. Carrying a sword by your side might not be that cumbersome but it's cumbersome enough to not wear them if they don't benefit you in the least. Modern soldiers don't carry swords. They haven't been carrying them for quite a while in battle. Not to mention the textual descriptions and the physical evidence (e.g. wounds that were forensically analysed, not to mention swords that were damaged in battle and left on the field).

>Fantasy of the artist
You're looking at a training manual of various techniques compiled by a master swordsman. It very much happened and it happened often enough that he thought it useful to include what to do if you're caught in such a situation .

What we now refer to as "sidearms" were just as equally used in battle as what a soldier's starting weapon was. If you actually knew history you'd know that soldiers would switch weapons following the initial engagement.

George Silver detected

>Archers had swords but how often did they fight in melee?
A whole fucking lot. Even at Agincourt, archers had to do a shitload of sword wrestling. You don't seem to know very much about this subject.

Good luck with 1/10 arquebus misfire rate.

I'm not going to. Those things were badass in mass armies. Not great on 1v1.

Crossbows are fucking retarded.
>Low fire rate.
>Useless at long distance distance.
Longbow beats crossbow any day.

Crossbows were easier to use so fuck you nigger not everyone has the time to autistically train his MLG longbow skillz.

Is this really so hard to understand?
>use crossbow
>run away
>reload
>use it again
>if I get caught stab like a madman until I can run again

>acting on your own while rest of the crossbowmen hold the line

enjoy being sentenced for desertion numbnuts your commander won't be very pleased to see that COD shit

It wasn't their choice though, they were for defence.

>Crossbows were easier to use
That's why only retarded niggers used them.
>not everyone has the time
You don't need too much skill for mass archery. Mostly muscles. Besides, britfags had mandatory weekly longbow trainings, so thats nice.

All the others would be running alongside me while your dumb ass gets cut apart for no good reason.

>use crossbow
>run away
>reload

Crossbows are heavy and you are fat lazy shit. Also they're useless at longer range, unlike bows. Even amateur archer would land several arrows while you try to leg it.

Good to know you're still not getting it.

90% of battle casualties were routing soldiers.

Main task of cavalry was to cut down fleeing soldiers. It was common even for defenders to kill fleeing mercenaries that they've hired.

Mass routing was the single most retarded thing dumbass soldiers could do.

>Main task of cavalry was to cut down fleeing soldiers.
No

Its not routing to keep your distance you dumbass. And commander with an ounce of intelligence (an ounce more than you apparently) keeps his missile troops away from enemy infantry and cavalry, which means they fucking run to keep away from them so they can keep firing. Do you really think that English archers or Roman velites positioned in the front fucking stood there and took the enemy charge? They hauled ass to safety so they could keep fighting the way they're supposed to.

Heavy calavry for charging. Light calavry for pursuit if you want to get technical.

In most battles calvalry would just wait for the right moment to charge. Or until enemies start fleeing.

You're still ignoring the fact that a crossbow had effective range of 60 yards, while the longbows had 200+

Look up battle of crecy. Mercenary genoese crossbowmen were obliterated by longbows before they could even run up to their efective firing range.

*Spoiler* After they started "backing up" french knights (who hired them) finished them off.

>Heavy calavry for charging. Light calavry for pursuit if you want to get technical.
No. Real life doesn't fit into your tropes.

Cavalry wasn't usually divided into light/heavy except by either very organised armies or in the later medieval period, or if one set of it happened to be Cataphracts. Otherwise it was just "Horse" and it had a variety of roles on the battlefield from scouting, charging, running down enemies, plugging gaps, skirmishing melee style or missile, or intimidation.

But I'm not a britfag so fuck you I'm not gonna 360 no scope someone with a longbow like some fucking tryhard.

Withdrawal and routing are two different things my friend :)

>Besides, britfags had mandatory weekly longbow trainings, so thats nice.
>Britfags
What is this "Brit" that you speak of?

I'm not a britfag either, but I've tried ~50lb replica and it wasn't too hard to handle.

If the enemy managed to get to crossbowmen then that meant their side was so fucked no running away would help at this point anyway.

Yeah I know. Why don't you tell that to the other user who replied to me assuming that they weren't?

Why are you bringing up longbows against a crossbow? This whole argument chain started with the halberd.

Medieval crossbowmen generally weren't peasants with a crossbow. They tended to be mercenaries, they would have had armour, even plate later on, as well as their large shield and a sword. It's not a Total War game, all range units aren't automatically shit in melee. Crossbowmen wouldn't be an easy victory in melee.

...

>If the enemy managed to get to crossbowmen then that meant their side was so fucked
Yeah bullshit. As has already been said the crossbow's effective range was shit compared to the longbow. In most fights the crossbowmen were put in front to harass the enemy before the two sides contacted, meaning the crossbowmen would fire however many volleys they could then haul ass behind their main line.

the autism rises

>Medieval crossbowmen generally weren't peasants with a crossbow. They tended to be mercenaries,
Lolwut. Sure the Genoese were famed for their mercenary crossbowmen, but the whole reason it was adopted by so many in Europe was specifically for the fact that it was easier to train people with than the bow.

>Even at Agincourt, archers had to do a shitload of sword wrestling.
They were at a pretty big advantage in that instance. The French were tired out and demoralized by the time any of them reached the English. In most cases an English general wouldn't risk his archers in a melee because at the time they were what won his battles.

Listen up you fucking shitlord I played Mount and Blade Warband in multiplayer mode and I rekt countless of fucking crossbowmen I know what I'm talking about.

This. 1v1 me Wildy
Don't know where i said anything to the contrary to that.

And you listen you absolute pleb I am a veteran Total War player and understanderer of Strategy and I have mastered the tactic of skirmishing. Your shitty knights wouldn't last 10 seconds against my arbalists.

Not that user, and I have to say both of you are almost right but kinda talking about different things
He'd be correct to say that light cavalry was used for mostly pursuit of discussing ancient times but considering this is medieval times we can dismiss it,
Your right in saying that cavalry was just referred to as "Horse" in most practical cases and that they weren't divided, especially for charges, where heavy cav would make the front and sides of the charge with lighter cav on the inside for more mass with the charge. However your absolutely retarded if you think that medieval commanders didn't distinguish between the two and the roles they were given

I personally have huge boner for sabre's, but they were mostly contemporary with firearms.

Well early Magyar Szablia's are p cool as well, but still it didn't really get great after the blackpowder.

>However your absolutely retarded if you think that medieval commanders didn't distinguish between the two and the roles they were given
hmm
>Cavalry wasn't usually divided into light/heavy except by either very organised armies or in the later medieval period,
>or in the later medieval period,

>50lb longbow.

Great. Now triple that draw weight.

>Medieval crossbowmen generally weren't peasants with a crossbow.

You mean double. The British Longbow Society estimates they averaged 90~110lbs.

Now try one with 100lb draw weight and fire consecutively for half an hour. There's a reason why their skeletons had abnormally large arm bones.

Confirmed retard. The Hundred Years' War proved that crossbows in the hands of a large peasant army could defeat a smaller better trained army of longbows.

The English ran out of longbow men due to it taking literally a lifetime to train on. Meanwhile the French just threw crossbows at guys and not much training was required since it's super easy to use.

Combine this with a century, heavy armour and a large shield and you'll have yourself a huge fucking empire.

>retarded celts come charging along with longswords, axes and spears
>they crash in to the shield wall
>one by one they are stabbed to death because of their inability to fight effectively in close quarters

Fuck all the polearms, longswords and other fancy weapons, what works in battles is teamwork, heavy armour, a large shield and 12 inches of point.

>fuck all the polearms

user Romans used goddamn spears as well and they hired celitc mercs the reason why they had empire to begin with is because they used everything and everyone that worked

nigger

Yeah well if we're going to play the hypothetical game.
Had the diadochoi not been retarded and abandoned the well-rounded army of Alexander, and had the Macedonians had not been retarded and decided to fight at Pydna, the sarissa phalanx would have smashed the Romans.

The only reason spears were used was when they couldn't afford to give everyone swords and to fight cavalry or to arm cavalry with.

The pros of spears are that they're cheap, effective against cavalry and are easy to train plebs to use.

Why samurai and Spartans used spears then if they are such a pleb weapon?

English longbow started out with more range then a crossbow and the design of the longbow itself peaked in the late 13th century. The crossbow was still improving. By the end of the hundred year war the longbow had lost its edge in range. By the time of Henry the 8th campaigns in main land Europe the crossbow out ranged the longbow by 20 yards according to English sources.

The halberd became a thing in the mid 15th century.

> name a better pre gunpowder era weapon

The halberd is not a pre gunpowder era weapon. The use of gunpowder weapons in a major role in European field battles got its start with Jan Žižka in 1410 at the Battle of Grunwald. It was the first time that gunpowder field artillery was used in battle by a European army. After some time in civil life Jan Žižka ended up as a major player in the Bohemian civil war in 1419 and the Hussite wars that followed.

The pic is of weapons of the Hussites that are decades older then halberds.

The best reasoned estimates is for a draw weight of 115~130 lbs. It is based on the weight of the livery arrow.

Fine

name a better pre gun that looks like a gun weapon

>By the time of Henry the 8th campaigns in main land Europe the crossbow out ranged the longbow by 20 yards according to English sources.
Which source?

>The English ran out of longbow men due to it taking literally a lifetime to train on.
The English never "ran out" of bowmen.

sword

who /thirdfromright/ here?

Crossbows weren't exactly cheap, and during the late middle ages most armies consisted of paid mercenaries and well trained household troops. The crossbow was not a weapon of low status. The fact that it was easier to train people with them mostly benefit city militias, which could afford to outfit people with them. Crossbows were by no means weapon that would be handed out to some levied peasants or something.

they werent

Field artillery was used at Crecy. Halberds were used in the late 14th century.

>halberds
>pre gunpowder

Veeky Forums once again showing it knows fuck all about history.

>he thinks that the hundred years war was determined by the French zerging the English with cheaper troops
>not the English king being an easily manipulated child and then spectacularly incompetent as an adult
>not a headlong charge into a defended position where the enemy outnumbered them and had a fuckton of cannons (not crossbows8)