Hawkwood - Vol. 5 Ch. 30 - Ottone Doria
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2018
- Messages
- 122
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2018
- Messages
- 6,870
They got rekt. Also, those are some long ass bolt.
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2018
- Messages
- 125
He tried to warn 'em. He really did.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 1,129
@PraetorDragoon
None whatsoever in any case, just the tip and the wood/metal body ?
None whatsoever in any case, just the tip and the wood/metal body ?
@Robbini @ Solaz It depends very much on the type of crossbow, the details of which are ignored in this chapter.
Crossbows, like regular bows, have a wildly varying draw poundage depending on their purpose. Light crossbows meant for hunting and skirmishing could have anywhere from 50-80 pounds, while heavy crossbows meant for open war were usually in the 120-150 pound weight. I don't know of any examples off the top, but I've heard references to crossbows that had to be cranked back with a winch because they had a draw weight of 180-200 pounds.
Until firearms became the standard, there were two schools of thought for how crossbows should be made and used: the first school of thought was primarily found in Italy and surrounding areas, which was that crossbowmen were best used as marksmen who shot down high-priority targets to break up battle lines and chains of command. The precursors to modern day snipers, if you will; equipped with heavy, well made crossbows and bolts, usually with fletching. The second school of thought, found elsewhere in Europe, was that crossbowmen were just another variant of levied archers who fired en masse to slow down the enemy in preparation for the inevitable melee and to suppress enemy archers; these would usually have cheap, light crossbows and bolts.
What we're seeing here is sort of a cross between the two historical versions. There's a couple of reasons for why the bolts would not have fletching, but none that easily match the obvious portrayal of these mercenaries as Italian heavy crossbowmen obviously trained in the marksmen style.
Of particular note is page 28, where it's made clear that these are in fact well-made heavy crossbows as evidenced by the stirrup on the end, and the smooth curved stock.
One slight problem is that I don't see evidence of a winch anywhere, which means these aren't the 180+ crossbows I mentioned; those bits where we see the crossbow bolts pierce the actual cuirass (the armored plate over the torso) wouldn't happen with these crossbows. The bolts piercing all the smaller plates and chain are perfectly realistic, though.
Crossbows, like regular bows, have a wildly varying draw poundage depending on their purpose. Light crossbows meant for hunting and skirmishing could have anywhere from 50-80 pounds, while heavy crossbows meant for open war were usually in the 120-150 pound weight. I don't know of any examples off the top, but I've heard references to crossbows that had to be cranked back with a winch because they had a draw weight of 180-200 pounds.
Until firearms became the standard, there were two schools of thought for how crossbows should be made and used: the first school of thought was primarily found in Italy and surrounding areas, which was that crossbowmen were best used as marksmen who shot down high-priority targets to break up battle lines and chains of command. The precursors to modern day snipers, if you will; equipped with heavy, well made crossbows and bolts, usually with fletching. The second school of thought, found elsewhere in Europe, was that crossbowmen were just another variant of levied archers who fired en masse to slow down the enemy in preparation for the inevitable melee and to suppress enemy archers; these would usually have cheap, light crossbows and bolts.
What we're seeing here is sort of a cross between the two historical versions. There's a couple of reasons for why the bolts would not have fletching, but none that easily match the obvious portrayal of these mercenaries as Italian heavy crossbowmen obviously trained in the marksmen style.
Of particular note is page 28, where it's made clear that these are in fact well-made heavy crossbows as evidenced by the stirrup on the end, and the smooth curved stock.
One slight problem is that I don't see evidence of a winch anywhere, which means these aren't the 180+ crossbows I mentioned; those bits where we see the crossbow bolts pierce the actual cuirass (the armored plate over the torso) wouldn't happen with these crossbows. The bolts piercing all the smaller plates and chain are perfectly realistic, though.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2018
- Messages
- 912
>crossbow bolts can easily pierce heavy cavalry armor
heh, that's cute.
heh, that's cute.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 2,389
I do wonder how effective crossbow bolt is. I've seen some test against armor, but if the enemy is also charging won't that make the impact stronger?
Probably won't be enough to pierce armor most of the time, but it should be strong enough to at least frighten the horse and stop a charging knight (if done in enough numbers)
Probably won't be enough to pierce armor most of the time, but it should be strong enough to at least frighten the horse and stop a charging knight (if done in enough numbers)
No, crossbow bolts cannot kill someone wearing plate armor. Let alone smaller ones that don't require a windlass.
What they could do was hit a knight in gaps between plates (like you would with a dagger or a pike - the logical way to kill a knight). It's still not known if the "many French knights were felled by crossbows at Agincourt" claim is true, but given how they tripped, collided, trampled each other, broke formation and fell into the mud during the battle, the most plausible hypothesis is that the knights were merely suppressed by a hail of crossbow bolts, suffering from reduced visibility/battlefield awareness as they hunkered down to prevent splinters and lucky hits from going into their eye slits or bouncing up into their necks, only for their horses to be hit. They fell over each other and were swiftly killed by footmen.
Regarding plate armor, by the end of its evolution, it could even stop early musket/arquebus projectiles. Many lords and kings actually had their armor tested against projectiles before purchasing them to make sure they would not fall prey to these devices. Even if a bolt punctured plate (like, say, on the gauntlet) , it still had to go through a layer of linen from the gambeson underneath, and that's if the target wasn't wearing a hauburk of riveted maille between the gambeson and the plate. All of that considering that it simply doesn't ricochet off the armor in the first place. They didn't wear this stuff just to look cool.
Crossbows were infamous against knights because of how quick and easy it was to train the common soldiery to use them, unlike a regular bowman, whose training, as the saying goes, "begins with his father". This made it easy to suppress knights with a hail of bolts in combat, preventing them from running amok on the battlefield as they pleased, killing footmen as if they were playing Dinasty Warriors. It was banned by the church along with bows and all missile weapons against Christians, not simply because they were especially deadly, but because they were considered a heinous method of killing (so sayeth the butthurt knights who grew up on melee).
What they could do was hit a knight in gaps between plates (like you would with a dagger or a pike - the logical way to kill a knight). It's still not known if the "many French knights were felled by crossbows at Agincourt" claim is true, but given how they tripped, collided, trampled each other, broke formation and fell into the mud during the battle, the most plausible hypothesis is that the knights were merely suppressed by a hail of crossbow bolts, suffering from reduced visibility/battlefield awareness as they hunkered down to prevent splinters and lucky hits from going into their eye slits or bouncing up into their necks, only for their horses to be hit. They fell over each other and were swiftly killed by footmen.
Regarding plate armor, by the end of its evolution, it could even stop early musket/arquebus projectiles. Many lords and kings actually had their armor tested against projectiles before purchasing them to make sure they would not fall prey to these devices. Even if a bolt punctured plate (like, say, on the gauntlet) , it still had to go through a layer of linen from the gambeson underneath, and that's if the target wasn't wearing a hauburk of riveted maille between the gambeson and the plate. All of that considering that it simply doesn't ricochet off the armor in the first place. They didn't wear this stuff just to look cool.
Crossbows were infamous against knights because of how quick and easy it was to train the common soldiery to use them, unlike a regular bowman, whose training, as the saying goes, "begins with his father". This made it easy to suppress knights with a hail of bolts in combat, preventing them from running amok on the battlefield as they pleased, killing footmen as if they were playing Dinasty Warriors. It was banned by the church along with bows and all missile weapons against Christians, not simply because they were especially deadly, but because they were considered a heinous method of killing (so sayeth the butthurt knights who grew up on melee).
Last edited:
