>This kills the Knight
This kills the Knight
Luke Ross
Other urls found in this thread:
Ayden Hill
What? It literally just doesn't.
Asher Ramirez
Longbows are shit against anybody with armor. This is why crossbows produced so much butt-hurt.
Elijah Taylor
ITT: People who have never heard of Crecy and Agincourt.
Parker Campbell
>falling for the memebow long
The bows didn't kill, the mud and angry men at arms with warhammers did.
Carter Walker
>inb4 IT WAS DE MUD!!!
When will plate cucks ever learn ;^)
Lincoln Evans
youtube.com
It's literal fucking Lindybeige and he doesn't support this longbow autism.
If longbows were indeed anti armour as people claim, the usage would have increased after the Hundred Years' War.
Brayden Cooper
The absolute butt hurt is astounding ;)
Not wasting my time on your autism video
Nathaniel Lewis
You winked. Well played.
Justin Hall
What's the deal with autists and archery?
Eli Kelly
Probably to do with the idea of the romantic noble peasantry defeating heavy mounted knights
Kevin Watson
salty anglo's still mad that they lost the HYW and also got 1066'd
Sebastian Gutierrez
It was relatively effective against armor; however, it required not only intensive training to stand a chance against an enemy army, but a high level of craftsmanship to produce bows and arrows. In the continent bows were simply replaced with crossbows and, after the adoption of gunpowder, guns
Hunter Lopez
Aren't Longbows in simple construction compared to Asian ones? Basic self bows with very little variation.
Michael Gutierrez
It's probably lingering anglo propaganda. That and just seeing that muh bows fire a bajillion arrows a minute while not knowing the context of these weapons
Charles Moore
The bows disrupted several cavalry charges, they definitely made a difference.
People used bows less because matchlock weapons became more common
Andrew Smith
you're right user, i was thinking about composite bows. Even so, my point stands; the bow wasn't used extensively in europe because it simply wasn't worth years an years of training.
Henry Anderson
>Agincourt
>a battle even the English describe as being fought hand to hand by knights and men-at-arms, with archers shooting into the flank, then joining in the melee with swords, axes and hammers
Austin Long
>swords
>axes
>hammers
wooden mallets user
Owen Johnson
>This kills the knight
Is more like it.
Carter Nelson
>When their
arrows had been used up, they took up axes, stakes, swords and the heads of lances
that lay between them, and laid the enemy low, ruining and transfixing them.
What did Thomas Elmham mean by this?
John Clark
isn't is to kill the horses though
Cameron Foster
No.
I mean billhooks are very good at killing horses, as they're effectively 6 - 8 ft long spears, but they're specifically designed for dragging knights down from their mounts so they can be killed on the ground.
Sebastian Hernandez
>It was relatively effective against armor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no experiment has ever showed that.
Joseph Foster
>Agincourt
>Date: October 25, 1415
>Crécy
>Date: August 26, 1346
When do you thing that knights in full armor stopped being popular? If you said about 1490 with it still being a thing for a few decades after words then you would be right. Also around 1420-23 a lot of new and improved helmets were invented.
Longbows did not kill the knights off as a class.
Solid iron cased cannons with wheels killed off the knights.