Why not just mass archers against them? They don't even have shields.

Why not just mass archers against them? They don't even have shields.

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Rock>scissors>paper>rock

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Indians actually did that against Cortes

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    because nobody goes into battle having only spears. Haven't you played total war? if they come at you with archers, you send the cavalry.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Haven't you played total war?
      I've played Shogun, Rome 2, and Three Kingdoms, and I haven't made it an hour in any of them before getting bored.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        shogun is too old, you probably didn't like it if you're younger than 25. Three kingdoms is trash. Rome 2 is nice, but I personally don't like it. Try Medieval 2 if you haven't given up yet.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Try Medieval 2 if you haven't given up yet.
          >trying medieval 2
          >catholic country declares war on me and attacks me
          >i beat them back
          >push into their country and start sieging a city
          >pope demands that I stop fighting
          >i continue fighting them
          >he excommunicates me
          >suddenly everyone else attacks me
          Garbage game.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Best pike and shot games compared later title.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The pikes don't even work properly in medieval 2. Soldiers just drop their pike and get their sword out as soon as melee happens.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                i think you can force them to use pikes. Just deselect their "auto" ability.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            The AI is pretty garbage, yes. There are some mods that try to fix the AI but I haven't tried them. In Medieval 2 alliances are basically useless, and if you play hard or very hard difficulty, everybody will hate you. You just have to play around that, but it's very hard to do that if you've grown accustomed to modern games with good AI. You have to learn the tricks, and then you'll enjoy the game immensly. It's basically a killing simulator. You play medieval 2 to enjoy surrounded and exterminating the enemy, or watching them die by your arrows before they can even reach your position.
            The pope is also retarded, but you can safely ignore him if you know how to play the game. What I like to do is call a crusade, conquer a muslim city, create 5-10 priests, and let them convert the population. By converting so many people, they eventually become cardinals. Which means that after ~15 turns I am the one who elects the pope.
            Word of advice, mercenary archers are by far the most OP unit in the game. Only the French and maybe the English have late-game units that sorta top them.

            ME2 is the peak

            checked

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              [log in to view media]

              Yeah Mercenary archer usually have higher range damage. But still crossbowmen is my favorite

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            your game was based, you are just a cuck

            however mtw2 units can be retarded sometimes, you order them to charge and 4 soldiers run ahead of the main group, stop short of the enemy then engage in regular melee while the rest of the group slowly moves towards them, you set horse archers to skirmish mode but they take their time while knights are charging towards them

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Such is life in mideviel europe.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >oh no i cant do what i want in a game that involves politics, how could i know that oy vey
            absolute midwit

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The problem is that the AI lacks any sort of objectively and targets me just for being the player. The pope punishes me for trying to take land from someone who attacked me, but he never punished the guy who attacked me unprovoked in the first place. That's not politics, that's artificial difficulty.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                its directly against the popes interest to have a hegemonical power in europe. so its just natural for him to try to preserve the status quo. you conquering territory (regardless of who started the war) is endangering the status quo.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yet he doesn't care when it's other countries conquering territory.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                ive seen him excommunicating ai realms who were fighting other ai realms. at the end of the day, its rng, live with it or keep crying

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >live with it or keep crying
                I'll do neither and just keep playing an actual good medieval game with a neutral AI, like crusader kings.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                and as soon as you stabilize your realm in crusader kings and get to the point where other countries can't just blob and stomp on you, nothing will stop you as you slowly gobble up the entire world

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                In crusader kings, the larger you are, the stronger your vassals become. In TW, blobbing actually makes you stronger and stronger, because there's no internal dissent.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Getting your vassals to the point where they're no threat to you any more and you dominate them is 99% of what 'stabilizing your realm' means. If you organize it right, you'll be an emperor ruling a huge number of powerless kings ruling a huge number of powerless dukes ruling a huge number of powerless counts. Basically you want every county ruled by someone different, and whoever holds a de jure duchy capital just gets to be a duke. The AI in Crusader Kings is typical Paradox trash, just the bare minimum to keep the game functioning, so it's actually completely ineffective at doing the actual medieval political dickery which is supposed to be the core focus of the game. You'll never have a scenario where your family is slowly undermined by an AI conniving to inherit your holdings with strategic marriages and 'accidents'.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                but they don't becomes stronger relative to you and as your little empire develops its bureaucracy you can keep them cucked and caged

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          ME2 is the peak

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >you probably didn't like it if you're younger than 25
          I'm way overage for LULZ

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            nobody is too old for autism, pseudointellectual discussions and anime porn

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Three Kingdoms has the best diplomacy system in any Total War game and is in general really solid aside from the absolutely insane DLC scheme they were trying before bailing on it. Abandoning the neurotic deathball of the central plains to start a comfy trade empire centered on Taiwan or Hainan is always a fun playthrough. Shotgun 2 is overall the most aesthetic historical Total War and Attila is the most immersive.

          That said Total War Warhammer 2 is unironically the best Total War ever made if you aren't a poorfag and can shell out for the 578 DLCs.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Okay perhaps I'm biased. I should give it a chance if the diplomacy is good. I just didn't like the new mechanics and the "heroes". I also don't love the graphics, but that's not very important. Shogun 2 is pretty good and immersive, but I think the other guy was talking about shogun 1.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It's not my favorite but it was pretty fun, the romance mode with big important characters is ok but the records mode plays really like what you would expect. It was fun to use your spies to slowly take over rival factions and such but I will say a lot of the map once you get away from the ocean is just dense unending mountainous shit holes which I guess is pretty accurate for inland China.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It has truly mediocre unit variety and too many of the really different units are gated way too far into the tech tree. Radious helps but they don't have much to work with.

            I do agree on the other points though, 3K is pretty good over all but the units are a glaring flaw.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Medieval 2 has trash ai

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Medieval 2
          Oh boy I love having no ability to manipulate the elements of my unit selector

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Elaborate, havent played it

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              not him. I think he might be referring to the ability to select a specific type of unit while in battle. I think that's possible if you hold down ALT.

              Medieval 2 has trash ai

              yeah, already said that here

              The AI is pretty garbage, yes. There are some mods that try to fix the AI but I haven't tried them. In Medieval 2 alliances are basically useless, and if you play hard or very hard difficulty, everybody will hate you. You just have to play around that, but it's very hard to do that if you've grown accustomed to modern games with good AI. You have to learn the tricks, and then you'll enjoy the game immensly. It's basically a killing simulator. You play medieval 2 to enjoy surrounded and exterminating the enemy, or watching them die by your arrows before they can even reach your position.
              The pope is also retarded, but you can safely ignore him if you know how to play the game. What I like to do is call a crusade, conquer a muslim city, create 5-10 priests, and let them convert the population. By converting so many people, they eventually become cardinals. Which means that after ~15 turns I am the one who elects the pope.
              Word of advice, mercenary archers are by far the most OP unit in the game. Only the French and maybe the English have late-game units that sorta top them.
              [...]
              checked

              [log in to view media]

              Yeah Mercenary archer usually have higher range damage. But still crossbowmen is my favorite

              Me too. BTW, I was referring to mercenary crossbowmen. They are the best early-game and mid-game units. They have long range AND piercing armor, which means that they melt general's bodyguard, and they also generally do a lot of damage to units. Having 5-8 units of merc crossbowmen is enough to win almost any open-field battle. They are a bit less useful in sieges though.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          ME2 is the peak

          >play Medieval 2
          >fight a battle
          >takes 5ever
          >suffer 30% casualties when engaging 1 unit of medium cavalry with 3 of spearmen
          >rinse repeat
          >rinse repeat
          >rinse repeat
          >try to take a city
          > one unit of enemy mailed knights in the square
          >send 4 units of spearmen
          >nearly run out of time just waiting for the knights to finally die
          >nearly 40% casualties
          >stop playing
          How do people enjoy this grabage?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            u suck at m2tw lmao
            cheese the game or spam cavalry u twat

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >i dont know how to play the game

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >NOOOOOOO I HAVE TO USE TACTICS AND CANT JUST CHEESE THE ENEMY WHILE TAKING 0 CASUALTIES

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >outmanuver enemy in opening moments of the battle
              >get every unit with an advantage over the enemy
              >outflank enemy
              >have to sit around and wait for them to just fucking die
              Literally what is the point?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                enemy in opening moments of the battle
                >>get every unit with an advantage over the enemy
                >sends spearmen against armored knights in a spot were the knights cant be routed
                the only one you are outmaneuvering is yourself

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >implying
                They would rout and come back and rout and come back and rout and come back. Shit was fucking boring as fuck

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                you are seriously just bad at the game.
                and your posts on crusader kings show that total war isnt an individual case, you are just a retard

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Same with Age of Empires 2 and to a lesser extent Stronghold Crusader

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You can't hold a pike and a shield though unless they bind it to the greek style. Also their armor is pretty useful against arrows. Their formations are protecting real archers and gun powder units, so if someone presses an attack on a pike formation, they expose their archers.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      >source: Have you played total war?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        You forgot your theme music, bro.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    come at me bro

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      alright wyboi u ask for it

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        Arrows can't penetrate armor, Jessica.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Pikeman armor left large amount of body uncovered.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Pikeman armor actually had the majority of the body covered, especially from the upper angle that an arrow could possibly reach him from in the rear ranks of a formation. Front ranks were often even more heavily armored. Look at it.

            [log in to view media]

            By that time the munitions armor is usually good enough to resist agains arrows/bolts. And Tercios were combined formations with melee and shot troops.

            You could hit the face (but the pikeman could duck his head)
            You could hit his arms, but they're a small target and partly beneath his upper arms, which are armored
            You could hit his lower legs and feet, but again, they're a small target, and protected by the ranks before. And simple shin and knee guards would cover most of that as well.
            I would estimate a soldier armored like this has 80-90% protection from arrows.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Bow drowning power of the chink in question equivalent to a 12 year old western girl.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    By that time the munitions armor is usually good enough to resist agains arrows/bolts. And Tercios were combined formations with melee and shot troops.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      [log in to view media]

      . Turkic/Mongol bows were heavy enough to help defeat armored knights in the best 13th-16th century Euro mail and full plate at Legnica, Mohi, La Forbie, Nicopolis, Ankara, Varna, Mohacs and other places.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        Not my field of expertise, I'll admit, but wasn't the strength of the mongols that they utilized their horse archers as a very effective, tactical & strategic mobile skirmishing force. Utilizing their horse archers to harass the enemies into fruitless pursuits to be picked of by the mongol heavy cavalry? Not so much the penetrating power against plate armor, which later on became even more commonplace.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          what is your field of expertise? >_>

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            1500s up to the 1800s. Enough to know that munitions armor (even the one made out of iron) is enough to be protect against warbows.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I wonder why bow and arrow are not used extensively in the era when everyone abandoning the armor. Yeah the training is gonna be a bitch that need a lot of years rather than inserting bullet, ram it and bam. Heard Wellington is interesting to make Longbowmen battalion

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >I wonder why bow and arrow are not used extensively in the era when everyone abandoning the armor [...]
                Many reasons:
                1. If any warbow would be introduced back on a large scale, then the opposing army could just armor up and negate the effect of the warbow largely.
                2. As you have said, it takes long to train a good warbowmen. And those social institutions were largely gone.
                3. Warbows and their arrows are quite resource intensive and needed special craftsmen to manufacture them. This is also true for firearms but the production of gunpowder became relatively easy. And the ammunition was just a lead ball that could be produced in the field. Here is a rather comfy video showcasing how easy it is to make the ammunition:

                4. The wounds caused by a lead ball are just far greater than what arrows and bolts usually cause.
                >Heard Wellington is interesting to make Longbowmen battalion
                I've heard that too but never came across a source for that - only in online forums is this claim made.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah the Mongols weren't really geniuses. They did the same shit over and over again. But their enemies just kept chasing after their archers just to get cutoff and mauled by their version of Knights.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Would get BTFOd by any pike and shot army during the late middle ages/early modern period. EVEN TILLY

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >help
        Yes, help. Horse archers are great at harming unarmored horses and lightly armored troops, which made the bulk of most of the armies at those battles. If you read up what actually happened at them, you'll often find that the hard core of armored knights inflicted disproportionate casualties and was beaten in ways other than arrow barrages.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Historical sources and experimental evidence say one thing
        >BUT the conclusions I draw from poorly understood and remembered anecdotes say different
        Please tell me you're a turk yourself or something, it would soothe me to know this idiocy did not originate in a white man's brain.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The Mongols weren't fighting knights in full plate armor during these battles and the Turks were beginning to use gunpowder weapons during the 15th and 16th centuries. Don't get me wrong, the bows were very useful but wouldn't do much against the armor that anon posted.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          just enterer this thread but Nicopolis/Varna are without gunpowder and involve literal fierce hand to hand combat between Ottoman horsemen and the full flower of European chivalry peak knight culture.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The nomadic bowmen weren't effective because they were super deadly but because they could draw out enemy forces then surround them. The problem with this tactics against pike men is that they were very disciplined and could hold their position, not falling for the feigned retreat.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          horse archers on their small mares get tired quickly. Crusader forces would wait for them to run around and get exhausted.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        [log in to view media]

        In literally none of those battles did archers decide the battle you uneducated cumstain.
        Read fucking history instead of wikipedia and youtube videos.
        Literally all the examples you gave the archers did fuck all and the lancers decided the battle.
        For fuck sake Ibn Al Athir literally calls mamluk horse archers useless twats against crusader armor and states the lance as the weapon of Allah that defeated the Franj

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    That's what happened at The Battle of Falkirk
    William Wallace focused all his power onto spearman and they got wiped out by the Welsh mercenary archers

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >another wave of these fucking bot threads

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Archers are difficult to train and doesn't happen overnight. Archery is exhausting, requires a lot of practice/training, and even then archers can only fire maybe a dozen arrows at full draw before they tire out, during which time they're sitting ducks to cavalry or even an infantry charge.

    By the time 'pike and shot' was a thing, shot was much easier to train than an archer, so you could conscript a peasant and teach them to reload and fire much faster than spending years training an archer and physical conditioning.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Archers could fire must faster and more accurately, though

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe. But the issue was that gunpowder weapons were easier to train for random peasant conscripts and thus gunners were more easily replaceable. You could muster up all your archers, but if any of them die from disease or wounds on campaign, then it'd take years to retrain.

        The Battle of Lapento, among other things, is known also because Ottoman archers got their shit kicked in and basically destroyed Ottoman archery culture since they lost all of their best archers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe the rate of fire in absolute numbers. Still the bowmen would conserve their strength and ammunition.
        Accuracy is debatable. On a one by one case the bow is better but when firing at formations that advantage is negligible.
        And smoothbore muskets can still be quite accurate in the hands of somebody who knows what to do - like any weapon.
        The wounding and killing potential of firearms was also greater.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >By the time 'pike and shot' was a thing, shot was much easier to train than an archer, so you could conscript a peasant and teach them to reload and fire much faster than spending years training an archer and physical conditioning.
      This is a myth originating from Smith's military revolution theory. There are no historical sources during the time period where archers were abandoned in favour of gunpowder that argue for the economics of gunpowder. Musketeers actually required more training due to the dangers of operating the weapon.
      Robert Barret, who wrote the Theorike and Practike of Moderne Warre (1598), even states the opposite:
      >Gent: What, would you have them cast away their bowes and billes, having bene charged with the same already?
      Capt: Not so, they may serve yet to many purposes. For all those weapons… [pikes, calivers and muskets], shall serve but
      for your trayned men: and your bills and bowes, which have every man, or most men can handle, shall, (if neede require)
      be put in place of service befitting them weapons.
      A poorly trained musketeer posed a danger not only to himself but also to those around him, as opposed to an archer who, even if untrained, in the worst case could only miss the target. Barret states this again in his book
      >The fierie shot, either on horseback, or foote, being not in hands of the skilfull, may do unto themselves more hurt then
      good: wherefore the same is often to be practised, that men may grow perfect and skilfull therein.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Okay let me stop you. You are saying it's easier to build a boy's body to have enlarged shoulders, back, and arms in order to pull a longbow, being so comfortable he can pull it back and let loose without aiming with 10 years of practice than training someone how to manage gun powder and reload it? You are crazy. The human mind can be trained to handle extremely complex systems, but to develop muscle memory and mass for a specific task over 10 years during puberty and development.... that cannot be cheated. That's why the French didn't use the longbow.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody mentioned longbows.

          Well two things. First you are totally wrong about muskets needing more training than bows. There is a huge mountain of evidence against this. Second, you're using England in particular as an example where they preferred archers for a long time, which is the only country in Europe where owning a bow and practicing with it was mandatory for every able-bodied man by law. So yes, in England in particular, they could expect the average man to know how to use a bow, but not a musket. That was not the case literally anywhere else.

          >Musketeers actually required more training due to the dangers of operating the weapon.
          Completely false.

          >t. my ass

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            he's right though

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Musketeers actually required more training due to the dangers of operating the weapon.
        Completely false.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Well two things. First you are totally wrong about muskets needing more training than bows. There is a huge mountain of evidence against this. Second, you're using England in particular as an example where they preferred archers for a long time, which is the only country in Europe where owning a bow and practicing with it was mandatory for every able-bodied man by law. So yes, in England in particular, they could expect the average man to know how to use a bow, but not a musket. That was not the case literally anywhere else.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      English longbowmen could fire 12 arrows per minute

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >A typical military longbow archer would be provided with between 60 and 72 arrows at the time of battle. Most archers would not shoot arrows at the maximum rate, as it would exhaust even the most experienced man. "With the heaviest bows [a modern war bow archer] does not like to try for more than six a minute."[48] Not only do the arms and shoulder muscles tire from the exertion, but the fingers holding the bowstring become strained; therefore, actual rates of shooting in combat would vary considerably.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Pikes and handguns could be trained in less than a month in some cases. They needed to employ large professional armies that Europe had not seen in the medieval period. Archers and man-at-arms would be trained from an early age for years. It was all about bang for your buck. That armor provided some protection against arrowheads and gun balls.

          16th c handguns would be doing good if they got 10 shots off in an hour.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >A Tudor English author expects eight shots from a longbow in the same time as five from a musket.[30] He points out that the musket also shoots at a flatter trajectory, so is more likely to hit its target and its shot is likely to be more damaging in the event of a hit. The advantage of early firearms lay in the lower training requirements, the opportunity to take cover while shooting, flatter trajectory,[30] and greater penetration.[50]

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    you get shot by the guys with guns

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >bring a shitload of archers
    >'hey look those archers dont have spears lets just run them down with our cavalry'

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The english did use longbows past the point when everyone on the continent used gunpowder. They had to realize at some point though that longbows suck against armor and made the switch as well.
    Btw your vaunted stepperoach janissaries likewise switched from bows to guns around this time.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    French depiction of Battle of Nicopolis
    Note the Turkish side having bows as the heavily armored French knights charge

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Remind you of anything?

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Tercio had gunners.
    Earlier pike formations would tank the archer fire and charge them
    >pikes cant charge
    life isnt a videogame

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    they did

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Just use the workshop, why does anyone play vanilla for anything other than multiplayer?

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >Why not just mass archers against them?
    Because these fags outranged your memechers.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      No they did not lmao. You are so dumb. Longbow can shoot 800-1000 yards. Gun powder in this time period guaranteed nothing but a high chance of hitting your opponent at point blank.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Meant feet* ... yards 300-400

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Enough to hit a formation.

          [log in to view media]

          Shit was inaccurate, i'm correct. Why do you think that line warfare was such a big thing into the 19th century?

          And warbowmen fought always in loose order firing at individual targets?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        based retard

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          [log in to view media]

          Shit was inaccurate, i'm correct. Why do you think that line warfare was such a big thing into the 19th century?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            pic related was the 16c meta, ride point blank and fire. They had to get close!

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              the reason they needed to get close is because the pistols lacked the power to pierce armour from a distance so you needed to fire them at point blank range to do actual damage

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Likely more to do with the horrible accuracy of pistols. The relatively huge projectiles they used carry their energy fairly well.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                do you honestly believe you wouldn't be able to hit anything beyond a few meters and that's why they shot at point blank range?
                please educate me on the forces involved that make the projectile go all over the place once it leaves the barrel.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://bowvsmusket.com/
        Read and be enlightened. Tl, dr you are wrong.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          No. I'm not because I actually study the history.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            i actually studied the history more than you did so i'm right and you're wrong

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Obviously not

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                obviously yes

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >source: I studied history

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >a big slow arrow buffeted by windage goes further than a tiny round metal pellet propelled by an explosive force.

        Confirmed for Noguns Eurofag

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Armor, unit flexibility, and aggressive maneuvers.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    If you look at historical battles, archers, whether on foot or horse, were only good to harass the enemy and provoke them making a bad move. But afaik, they never caused major casualties on their own.
    And when you look at youtube you know why: They cant even penetrate light armour:

    So it was for all ranged weapons, until firearms emerged. Sadly, movies and games exaggerated the power and efficieny of archaic historical weapons.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This has to be bait.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't you see the video? The man shoots a heavy warbow at close range and it doesn't penetrate the gambeson,

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I've seen an arrow shot through ballistic armour and come out the other side,if arrows couldn't hurt people armies wouldn't use them for thousands of years

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The reason they provoked the enemy into moving is because sitting still against archers would lead to everyone dying like what happened at Falkirk.

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Archers are expensive to train, and equip. Also, battlefield communications were limited, so it was difficult to utilize groups of archers far away from your command post.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Also, battlefield communications were limited
      Also why so many tactics relied on simplifying orders and consolidating armies into giant death balls, because dividing your army pre-Napoleon and shit meant you could literally lose half your army (or they give up and go home) and you wouldn't realize it until next winter.

      >Tercio
      If flag is this way, pikes out, shooters inside. If flag in this other way, pikes swap and shooters and shooters go shooty shoot.

      >Line musket
      March, drill, reload, aim, and fire in tandem if you hear this drum beat or your captain shouting orders. If you hear this other drum beat, fix bayonets and either brace or charge.

      >Medieval Battles
      Fuck me, I sure hope we have more guys than those guys because if we can't scare them into running away, we're fucked.

Your email address will not be published.