Muh thousand times folded longbow can pierce a tank!

>muh thousand times folded longbow can pierce a tank!
>Agnicourt never forget
>Patay doesn't count though
>the fact that french won the war doesn't count either

longbow is to pre gunpowder projectile weapons what katana is to blades

fuck it, get a crossbow instead
>muh range
if I can shit out more crossbowmen than you can archers then I already won nigger

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Ok, what's your point?

Lindybeige was born out of his mom's ass instead of the customary opening in the vagina.

>t.butthurt frog

He wants to have a discussion about historic archery, but he is to shy to ask. Puberty is a difficult age.

>Projecting this hard

At least the Longbow actually won some important battles like Agincourt. Name one relevant battle in which people using Katana's played a significant roll and how this battle effected geopolitics on a larger scale.

kek

>get a cross bow instead
>he can't learn marketable skills
>has to rely on a wind up 'crutch' baby weapon
Classic.

crossbows are no skill noob weapons and kill balance why would I use one?

>Be Genoese
>Get crossbow
>Cant unstring it
>Get rained on
>French force you to fight
>Crossbow doesn't work properly, bowstring is wet
>Get mowed down by longbowmen because you can't effectively return fire
>French pls help
>Get mowed down by the French because you're Italian and in their way
>Crossbowmanslife.jpeg

>the fact that french won the war doesn't count either
The French should have won the war way easier than they did. The fact that a bunch of Anglo-Saxon peasants managed to mow down three generations of French nobility and it took a mentally ill English king for the tide to finally turn is a testament to the longbow's power.

>Be Longbowman
>It's battle time
>Didn't rain all day before battle
>Heavy cavalry is charging
>Arrows bounce of armors
>Die a lot

The French have special gift. If there is no way that one can fuck up some situation, the French will fuck up the lot. And here you have 2WW, they lost to some militia, they lost to some archers. Winning against French doesn't prove anything.

>The fact that a bunch of Anglo-Saxon peasants managed to mow down three generations of French nobility

This here at the core of the worship of longbow. The English sentiment of the power of peasants versus the French elite that dominated not only their viewpoint of the weapon but also language. French are the snobbish fake elites, English are the heartfelt sincere peasants.

Of course not realising the fact that "Anglo-Saxon" peasants weren't the only part of the army and in agincourt most of French nobility was murdered with swords and knives while they were stuck in the mud by the Anglo-Norman nobility. No mention of the fact the French king had a very loose control over most of France because the most numerous duchies answered to the English King.

They think it was some sort of brotherhood of English peasantry against the might of Kingdom of France when in reality it was a long struggle of French king to assert control over dukes more powerful than he is while fighting an uphill battle against half of his own country plus Kingdom of England. No mention of the fact that French King was also mentally unsound and the tides only turned once a new King took place and reestablished his control over most of Kingdom of France after nobility died and the fiefs were for the taking.

It's a fundamental attribution of petty feudal politics to a wider, almost ideological conflict, of course applied retroactively.

>Be [anything but heavy cavalry or disciplined pikemen]
>It's battle time
>Didn't rain all day before battle
>Heavy cavalry is charging
>[weapon]s bounce of armors
>Die a lot

This. Although to nitpick a bit, at Agincourt it's true that most of the killing happened in the melee, but it was still the longbowmen who did most of the killing, with mallets and knives. The power of longbowmen wasn't really the longbow, although that certainly helped; it was more the fact that they were essentially light melee infantry who also had a powerful bow; they were expected to fight in the melee.

>in which people using Katana's played a significant roll
Using Katana's what? Who is Katana? And how can you play a roll?

billhooks worked as well

>Be [anything but heavy cavalry or disciplined polearm user]
>It's battle time
>Didn't rain all day before battle
>Heavy cavalry is charging
>[weapon]s bounce of armors
>Die a lot

Patay proved what everyone already knew, missile troops when caught in the open and not prepared to take a charge will be routed by cavalry charges, it has no bearing whatsoever on any discussion of the relative merits of crossbows vs longbows its not like a similar sized force of crossbowmen would have fared better.

what agincourt, crecy and poiters proved is that well deployed longbows can be extremely effective as part of a combined arms method with heavy infantry in support, and that with correct tactics heavy cavalry could be crushed.

as for the relative merits of a crossbow versus a longbow, the longbow did offer a higher rate of fire and a longer range with trained troops, and was able to beat crossbows when the two weapons were used in missile exchanges prior to attacks by cavalry.

the crossbows main advantage was that it was cheaper to make and required less training, and had a higher maximum draw weight.

however the advantage of cheaper training is somewhat overstated, it would have been a major advantage in the times of citizen armies and mass levies, but these werent really a feature of warfare in the medieval period, most armies were paid professionals, you werent rounding up guys training them and equiping them, you were hiring the guys already trained and available in your region or contracting out to another region, hence the english with a ready pool of longbows recruited them, the french hired genoese mercenaries

>Be Longbowman
>It's battle time
>Didn't rain all day before battle
>Heavy cavalry is charging
>Arrows bounce of armors, many hit horses breaking charges momentum
>sheltered from charge by line of stakes and supporting heavy infantry
> dart out among the wreck of the charge and start slaughtering the survivors
>win great victory

economics and british internal political strife won the war, french arms did not

Just goes to show how little you knew about medieval battles. The arrows are not meant to kill the heavily armoured riders but their horses. You can't charge into English positions with dead horses and you're a sitting duck for the more agile men-at-arms

>what agincourt, crecy and poiters proved is that well deployed longbows can be extremely effective as part of a combined arms method with heavy infantry in support, and that with correct tactics heavy cavalry could be crushed.
It proved that attacking in bad weather is stupid idea
>for the relative merits of a crossbow versus a longbow, the longbow did offer a higher rate of fire and a longer range with trained troops, and was able to beat crossbows when the two weapons were used in missile exchanges prior to attacks by cavalry.
That is just retarded. You bring up ONE battle, where bowmen defeated crossbowmen and use it as a rule. Of course let's ignore, that English were in fortified position on hill, and crossbowmen weren't fully equipped and had weakened strings.

You know what? The game of yours look fun, and i want have some fun too.
Let's see
Spear and shield is better than combined arms of artillery, cavalry and riflemen.
Proof:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
Damn, I'm so smart.
>but these werent really a feature of warfare in the medieval period, most armies were paid professionals
Oh, so that's why professionals in all of Europe used crossbows, and only English had bows.
>Arrows bounce of armors, many hit horses breaking charges momentum

Again, you just used one example, i guess it's ofc Agincourt.
If stopping cavalry charge was so easy, everyone would use bows. Yeah, you don't even need longbows, "normal" bows would fire faster, and penetration force would be still ok against unarmored horses.

>The arrows are not meant to kill the heavily armoured riders but their horses. You can't charge into English positions with dead horses and you're a sitting duck for the more agile men-at-arms
So why English army failed to accomplish such easy trick in all but one battle(with a help of mud)?

Continuing...
You know why English used longbowmen?
England was piss poor, also to few noblemen to make from them serious army. Oh look, there are some "free peasants", wealthy enough to buy some armor, and they can use bows. Also, we can pay them twice less. Let's use them.
And what happened in few hundred years of wars? Not surprisingly English won few battles. And later people started incorrectly claim "It's all thanks to longbowmen"

You seem upset

>Again, you just used one example, i guess it's ofc Agincourt.
poiters actually, although agincourt and crecy were also examples of the same thing

the reality is that at 3 different battles the english army managed to defeat numerically superior forces of heavy cavalry at little loss to themselves, they did so using a combination of longbows and heavy infantry at each occasion