I've heard the reason why in the middle ages they didn't archer only armies is because it takes a long time to train...

Against all the odds, King Henry V triumphed over a fresh army four times bigger than his own because, arguably, King Henry’s forces had the longbow. The massively powerful longbows were the medieval equivalent of modern machine guns. They could wound at four hundred yards, kill at two hundred and penetrate armour at one hundred yards. The five thousand longbowmen, each loosing fifteen arrows a minute, let fly a total of seventy five thousand arrows in one minute: an arrow storm that was said to have blocked out the light of the sun.

Why other countries didn't have the laws that required useless fucking peasants to train with the bow?

Notice how I said "situational?"
The soil at Agincourt was freshly tilled, and turned into mud by heavy rain, making it very unsuitable for horses. The English had time to plant large wooden stakes in the ground to protect them from the french cavalry (which made up most of their army.) The French actually did push the English back once they managed to get past the stakes but were eventually defeated anyways.

>Notice how I said "situational?"
Does that suggest a set piece battle? Thats what nobility did in the medeval era, until the longbow shot some sense into them

Because archers are horribly overrated in the context of western european war.

When heavily armored troops-or even moderately armored-are around, archers need a lot of protection or they get slaughtered or driven off the field with ease.

They should have brought back the pila. Probably would be spectacularly effective against plate armor.

Other countries were more afraid of their peasants.

Other countries oppressed their peasants, but English peasants were free and respected men. Really it was all like the shire in LOTR

or atlatl. these things were a real threat for spanish heavy cavalry even when stone- or obsidian tipped, wonder what they might be capable of with ango- or pilum styled armor-piercing steel head.

iberians used javelins though, you should read about jinete(castille) and almugavars(aragon)

>The massively powerful longbows were the medieval equivalent of modern machine guns.

What is this the history channel?

>What is this the history channel?
Well. Considering this:
I'd say yes. This is the history channel, with less explosions.

exploding atlatl darts would be fucking brutal as fuck.

The Church fucking banned the use of archers against Christians because they killed indiscriminately and were perhaps TOO effective in combat. But people used them anyway to varying degrees simply because they were so effective.

Because during larger wars peasants were used many regions encouraged peasants to practice with the bow, competitions and whatnot, but some regions did that a lot more than others. England for example had a lot of peasants who knew how to use a bow.

How exactly is a relatively slow moving javelin with a soft iron shaft supposed to get through solid steel armor?

Its the exact opposite.
The advent of the warbow and a large pool of ablebodied men who could use it pose a massive threat to the nobility of the lands.
When a knight/lord is outnumbered 10:1 and his armor and weaponry is diminished in effectiveness he's not going to be able to retain his high standing in a Feudal society.
Middle-Ages
This is before full plate and heavy plate so those who would say "archers cant beat armor" at this time they could, easily (well as easy as 10:1 advantage)
Only in England where the Saxon administrative systems favored a social stability was the longbow used en masse because the nobility didn't have a bunch of angry peasants.

Crossbows came about and didn't negate the armor of the day and thus we see crossbows used en masse.
I got this from a historian at a museum when I was a boy so this may or may not be outdated....

The English in Anglo-Saxon times did not use Longbows. It was a Welsh thing at the time.

That was crossbows that was banned though, not regular bow.

it could probably punch through plate armor, and even if the ancient version couldn't it could be upgraded to adjust its weight and tip. the point is, a long thin javelin with a heavy shaft could punch a hole in plate armor and then bend the way it's designed to do. so instead of rendering a shield useless it'll just weigh down the french fagét in his armor, if it doesn't kill him.

Not really
>We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics.

it was law in england that every male aged 15-30, had to practice archery for a few hours every sunday after church

youtu.be/Gp82ZXspIFI

that was both.

You seriously underestimate the amount of force that's needed to get through plate armour. It wasn't seen as special to see guys in armor take close range longbow shots and even blows from a charging lancer and not only survive, but keep fighting too.
The "metagame" of late medieval warfare was that armor dominated the scene. Every single weapon on the field was designed to deal with armour, but even then actually defeating it was a considerable effort.
If it were possible to make a throwing weapon that could pierce armour it would've existed. But it didn't.

Look at the gnarly looking points on these halberds. Not even with one of these could you get through plate armour. They weren't there to get through it, but to bypass it in the gaps. Just getting though those and the mail and padding that might be protecting them required some heavy duty shit. Actually getting through was nigh-impossible.

What about spears?

>be namefag
>be an idiot

surprising

>doesn't answer my question

I didn't ask for a meme you autist.

This
Nah, but on a more serious note, there's nothing about a spear that would make it better at getting through armour.
Awlpikes were essentially spears that were completely specialized for armoured combat, which just means that it was slender and sturdy enough to let you jam it between plates and (hopefully) get through what was underneath. They were so heavily specialized that they would've been seriously poor weapons against lightly armoured enemies compared to anything with a broader head or cutting blade. It's safe to say that carrying one of these meant that you needed a good sidearm.

Now stop namefagging you moron.

What if you guys being autists for me being a namefag which causes the thread to derail is why I do it?

:^)

>hurr could a spear pierce armor when a fucking halberd couldn't durr xD

kys

I'll stop name fagging though, since this is 4Chin community policy where it might trigger a little user for some reason.

Anyways, thanks for the answer.

not that guy but you are an idiot, for a spear to be able to penetrate plate armor enough to kill the wearer it would:
1) Have to not be deflected by the curves of the armor
2) Have to have both itself and the armor wearer colliding at fast enough speeds to be able to penetrate all layers of armor and not break (try thrusting a spear at a set of armor if you think you can crack it)
3) Have to do so in the short amount of time before the spear wielding peasant gets stabbed

I would speculate you could do this to a mounted knight but why then not just aim for the horse instead?

>ask a simple question
>"ur an idiot"

Is it bad to ask or are you guys pissed about a small question?

I get it, it doesn't have enough matter to penetrate the armor, but still, I don't personally own a spear, how would you expect one to know?

I don't own a machete but I know it won't do shit to a tank.

>it could probably punch through plate armor
Iron cannot "punch through" forged steel. It would break or bend before doing so. You could at best knock the wind out of a person in full plate armor with a pilum toss. At best. More likely it just makes him stumble a bit then he keeps coming at you. Nothing could really "punch through" steel plate armor, not even heavy crossbows. The only way to kill somebody wearing it was to get through its gaps, and that's mighty hard to do when they're riding a warhorse. So it was a multi-step process. First you have to get them off the horse, then ideally you immobilize them so you can get their helmet off, then you fuck them up. In the time it takes you to do that they can probably have killed a dozen men at least.

That's an extreme not necessarily comparative to the hypothetical situation of whether a spear can damage armor. I was merely curious.

Kill yourself.

That's a bit of a different extreme though.

How did such an infamously wet country develop a tradition for a weapon that's notorious for disliking water?

see >even if the ancient version couldn't it could be upgraded to adjust its weight and tip.
if it was made of steel it might work bruh

You can't generate as much force with a throw as you can with a melee attack, and we already know that you couldn't stab through armour.

but if it was heavy, with weight added, and good hardened steel, that surely could get a great enough velocity and momentum at its sharpened tip to plunk a hole

Nope, the energy behind it when it's coming down won't be higher than at the point when it's thrown.

but you can put more energy into it due to the added weight

it could potentially reach terminal velocity (in theory) with the weight added. it'll fall fast and hard. it's like a sledgehammer, you raise it up and just let if fall and it because of its weight it has a lot of force

Spears are the same deal as the spike on halberds. Meant to find the gaps. If you look at how knights fought with greatswords, they don't swing their swords at armoured opponents. One of their main techniques was to "half-sword," gripping the blade with their left hand to more accurately control the thrust so as to find the gaps in the enemy armour. Alternately, they would use the crossguard as a hammer, gripping the sword by the blade. This was called the murderstroke. That's excluding the real knight-killer: grappling. Armour is far better than the mainstream memes say: it's incredibly easy to move around in, allowing full range of movement, and the encumbrance is really not that significant. It's far less noticeable than carrying a full overnight hiking kit, and they trained their whole lives to wear it, so to them wearing armour would seem normal. Meaning that grappling a man in armour is actually more difficult than grappling one who is not, because punching him does literally nothing but bruise your hand. However, if you can get him in a joint lock or otherwise pin him in place, it's very easy for a buddy to come, shove up his visor, and stick a dagger in his face.

Basically, pointy stuff just doesn't go through plate very well. Your best shot is to use a blunt weapon or stab them in the armpit or slash at the backs of their knees, just find a weak point and poke it.

Look up what actually happened at Agincourt: essentially, the hail of arrows bounced off the plated knights, but the horses were pierced all over their flanks and shoulders and panicked, adding to the uselessness of the charge, slowed severely as it was by mud. When they got to the stakes, those that weren't unhorsed by their horses bucking them or being killed were quickly pulled off anyway by the mob of unarmoured infantry with mallets and knives who quickly found the gaps in the armour of those few knights who didn't immediately surrender upon being unhorsed.

The heavier it is the more force you need to throw it that high.

What about slings? Why did Europe abandon the sling? Japan still used slingers until the modern day.

You are now all aware that Agincourt was almost entirely an infantry vs infantry battle with a handful of French cavalry fucking about on the flanks and getting slaughted instantly, with most of the fighting being between the French and English knights and men at arms.

Citation: pretty much every first hand account and chronicle describing the battle.

In the middle ages it was still considered pussy shit (in varying degrees depending on what region we're talking about) to use a bow and arrows instead of engaging in direct combat.

Tldr: Muh chivalry

...

This. Let's assume there is no air friction. A sledgehammer works because you can slowly raise it to a height just above your head and basically let it fall. The entirety of its energy on impact is kinetic energy. This amount of kinetic energy is equal to the amount of potential energy it has at the height you raised it to (Potential energy is a function of altitude and mass, while kinetic is a function of velocity and mass). If you throw an object straight upwards, the kinetic energy imparted at the start will be a function of the force of your throw and that force alone, meaning the weight of the object is irrelevant. The total energy of the system, potential+kinetic, will remain constant. As it reaches its maximum height, kinetic energy is converted into potential and its rate of ascent slows until it is descending. The apex of its flight is the point where all its energy is potential and none is kinetic. This potential energy will be wholly converted back into kinetic energy when the object reaches the height you threw it from. This amount of energy will be _exactly equal_ to the kinetic energy imparted at the instant you threw it. However, in the real world, air friction means that it will be significantly less. Basically, it is impossible to put more force into a thrown weapon than a melee strike.

whelp might have to add rockets then

don't quite get it but kek

what if you threw it from on high? is this the secret to success?

Literally yes. If you can accurately drop something heavy and sharp on a guy in armour from high enough then it should go through. Provided the tip is harder than the armour, that is. Else it might deflect.
Also
Using gunpowder to propel projectiles to speeds great enough to pass through plate armour?Brilliant idea!

You're retarded.

why not just use a rock instead.

Because really good archers were harder to train and not easy to equip and supply, except in wales.
The English copied their methods because it worked so well, and did it on a grander, more professional scale, which is why they could do it when no one else could.

The french didn't have any real methods of getting enough yew or good elm, they couldn't get it from the welsh who spent hundreds of years setting up the infrastructure. So instead they opted for decently armoured footmen and men at arms, because they didn't take that much more equipment, took much less time to prepare and train, and didn't require a massive fetching and bow making industry to supply.
The English mostly cut out their mounted soldiers to sort out having longbowmen, it was a trade off that very rarely worked out in history.

what do i look like a stinky gallic dungmonkey? no no, we don't use rocks.

mass is irrelevant to the amount of potential to kinetic force in an objects path. Hench the feather and the cannoball thingy.

I doubt it. Armor is designed to deflect attacks, but even if you did land a perfect shot and it didn't get deflected the projectile would have to hurled with tremendous force to do anything except bounce off. Like if a scorpio or something fired a steel-tipped spear at 20 yards at a man in full plate and it struck him square in the chest, that would definitely hurt if only because it would likely lift him off the ground and slam him backward. Even then it would likely just dent the armor.

'no'
youtube.com/watch?v=hjV7lYP6hRw

Nothing you said is correct.

Yeah, and they cut horse and rider in half with one swing of maquahuitl, we know these silly stories.

No it wouldn't, propably it would do shit even against maille.
Hm, I recall in one of those youtube history channels, with two loud guys testing various weapons, they were throwing pilums and rivetted mail deflected it.

Money, archers were cheaper, and thanks to that they could deploy larger armies, quantity over quality. And guess what, English had access to already trained ones.

>Hm, I recall in one of those youtube history channels, with two loud guys testing various weapons, they were throwing pilums and rivetted mail deflected it.
they prob threw it like a 12yr old girl. doubt they even used amentum.

The english archer meme lasted one long war, which the english lost in the end.

Arrow hits horse, you fall in full kit at 25 mph. Not good. Just the impact of an arrow would deliver 60 kilos of force.

Great post

>atlatl
>maquahuitl
Why do Aztec words all look like someone sneezed into a voice-to-text program?

>aztec
*nahuatl

Gesundheit.

thanks user

French victory in the HYW has significantly more to do with Henry VI being a child and then massively unsuited to kingship, rather than any lack of ability of English soldiers and their weapons.

Longbows would be used by the English military well into the 16th century, with longbow equipped English mercenaries popping up all over Europe too.

>thumbnail is Twinkies

That depends on the quality of armor. Armor you talk about was owned by relatively few people, usually rich nobles, kings, generals and so on.
Besides, you don't need to penetrate armor to do damage, halberd hitting you on your head could fuck up your spine and what not.

>but how come England spammed their longbowmen and did well?

>Lose everything

>did well

That would be extremely inaccurate, Javelins are meant to be thrown before a charge and straight at the enemy, not on a vertical fall like an archer volley at long distance.

sorry

Why do no people understand how plate works? If you pelt someone wearing full plate armor with things such as pilums and crossbows. no they do no fully pierce to kill - that's not the fucking point. The point is you morph the armor from being pelted so much you can no longer move inside said armor. You don't hit a person with a mace and crush that person skull, you crush the helmet and the helmet crushes the skull, usually over time as you can no longer remove the helmet, helmet is a singular excuse.

You can imagine how a man in full plate armor would be demobilized after a few hits to say the chest area, which the armor now crushing the mans ribs with no way of relieving it.

You can imagine the damage that arrow would do to you via crushing, if that armor was strapped onto you.

In lots of cases you have to remove your armor, which as you probably can tel you cannot do in a battle.

Also to add to this. Anyone who says people wearing full plate were killed was fucking retarded. Plate costs something a long the lines of (today money) 20,000 pounds. ANYONE wearing that kind of money in a battle thousands of years ago were not killed, they were taken captive and ransomed.

literally why Heraldry exists (at least one reason), so you can tell knights apart and ransom them.

The Anglo-Saxons didn't just vanish in 1066.

>use blunt weapons only
>capture prisoner
>sell to ransom broker
>???
>denars

>that surely could get a great enough velocity and momentum at its sharpened tip to plunk a hole

No. Basic physics proves you wrong. There is no difference between being hit by a javelin at the end of its down arc, or being hit at point blank at the start of its rising arc. If you can't be killed from a throw at point blank, you won't be killed from being hit a distance.

>There is no difference between being hit by a javelin at the end of its down arc, or being hit at point blank at the start of its rising arc.

This is an entirely subjective argument. It's operating on the assumption that on the rising arc the Javelin is at its terminal velocity, which is physically impossible for a human to do, that's the point of a Javelin - throw them high, come down harder.

Why are we all assuming the majority of men in a medival battle were wearing plate armour? It was a luxury, you think some farm boy could afford a full plate?

>Javelin is at its terminal velocity
It isn't. If it is, please show me the math on how an object somehow has gained more energy, than it started with.

Energy isn't velocity you moron, I mean velocity is a form of kinetic energy.

Holy shit, are you literally retarded? The math is right there, are you trying to deny physics?

You cannot throw something at terminal velocity which is heavy as fuck... what you can do though is throw it high enough it achieves terminal velocity on it's own, how are you trying to deny simple physics? That's literally what that image is showing you, the downward arc is much steeper and shorter than the upward arc, meaning it dropped faster than it was thrown.

>what you can do though is throw it high enough it achieves terminal velocity on it's own, how are you trying to deny simple physics?

And I'm saying that is impossible because the energy gained from the drop had to be put in at the beginning. The steeper drop simply means it accelerated faster than it decelerated.

If that is NOT what it means, then go write up the math, and show it to me.