You can kill a fully armored knight with less than a month of training. Crossbowmen were paid almost double wages because they were seen as morally bankrupt. and no one else wanted to do it.
Crossbows aren't any stronger than a longbow and I'm fairly certain longbows already can't penetrate knight armor of that time, you may be thinking of the later archebusiers?
Projectile energy is comparable, but you need to train for 10 years to be an effective longbowman, but a couple months with a crossbow will let you achieve the same results.
You will achieve the same killing ability maybe but crossbowmen were deployed differently due to the size of their weapons and the difficulty of utilizing it in the same way. I dont know much about crossbowmen were used tactically though.
I think mail probably still would relatively effectively defend against stuff like that? But more in a "Bullet proof vest against higher caliber rounds" way than "Arrows literally plinking off harmlessly" where the deceleration helps prevent it from fully penetrating and instead getting stuck doing flesh wounds.
A sufficiently high poundage crossbow (and they had very high poundages because they used mechanical tension) could blast a hole through even a plate chest plate and the guy wearing it. Though it would have to shot from somewhere close by and hit straight on or else yes it would just deflect. Though some of the most advanced plate armor may even resist that.
The thing about high poundage crossbows reminds of an account I read of a roman ballista passing through three men in a row with shields. Absolutely crazy to think of that kind of firepower, must have been terrifying.
Probably yeah, haven't heard of any practical testing but reading up on heavy arbalests and other crossbows like it, it seems possible. Those are a little further than the conventional idea of a crossbow which most people imagine though, like how an anti-materiel rifle and an infantry rifle are both rifles, but if you say the word rifle the infantry rifle is the image conjured.
reminds of the time pope innocent II banned crossbows cause they were too good at killing knights.
perfidious peasant tool only suited for heretics and italians!
You can kill a fully armored knight with less than a month of training. Crossbowmen were paid almost double wages because they were seen as morally bankrupt. and no one else wanted to do it.
Crossbows aren't any stronger than a longbow and I'm fairly certain longbows already can't penetrate knight armor of that time, you may be thinking of the later archebusiers?
Projectile energy is comparable, but you need to train for 10 years to be an effective longbowman, but a couple months with a crossbow will let you achieve the same results.
You will achieve the same killing ability maybe but crossbowmen were deployed differently due to the size of their weapons and the difficulty of utilizing it in the same way. I dont know much about crossbowmen were used tactically though.
What kind of fucked up shit was catholic church up to, when they named pope innocent?
Church mafia pretty much. Assassination, stuff with banks, illicit sex, extortion.
That explains the first innocent, but this is the second one :horror:
The first innocent condemned a teaching that humans were fundamentally good as heresy so take from that what you will
Really? I kinda doubt that cause plate armor will just straight up deflect most anything like that.
I googled and yeah he banned them for use against christians so it might have been like "No intra-faith violence you assholes" thing.
deleted by creator
I think mail probably still would relatively effectively defend against stuff like that? But more in a "Bullet proof vest against higher caliber rounds" way than "Arrows literally plinking off harmlessly" where the deceleration helps prevent it from fully penetrating and instead getting stuck doing flesh wounds.
deleted by creator
A sufficiently high poundage crossbow (and they had very high poundages because they used mechanical tension) could blast a hole through even a plate chest plate and the guy wearing it. Though it would have to shot from somewhere close by and hit straight on or else yes it would just deflect. Though some of the most advanced plate armor may even resist that.
The thing about high poundage crossbows reminds of an account I read of a roman ballista passing through three men in a row with shields. Absolutely crazy to think of that kind of firepower, must have been terrifying.
Probably yeah, haven't heard of any practical testing but reading up on heavy arbalests and other crossbows like it, it seems possible. Those are a little further than the conventional idea of a crossbow which most people imagine though, like how an anti-materiel rifle and an infantry rifle are both rifles, but if you say the word rifle the infantry rifle is the image conjured.
Hmmm.... Sounds like a vatican op to me.