 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / July 2009Longbow vs. armour
There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail and platemail. I discovered some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic that might be of interest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4gPgHyaG1Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtTyOf8OCKg > There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail > and platemail. Impossible. At least in an ANCIENT history newsgroup. > > There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > > troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail > > and platemail. > > Impossible. At least in an ANCIENT history newsgroup. The Vikings had longbows and chainmail (and weren't the inventors of either) by the 9th C AD, well within the remit of the group, so you're obviously not referring to the discussion. You must be referring to the presence of trolls, then. Glad to see you're finally admitting you are one. >>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately >>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the presence of trolls, then. Glad to see you're finally admitting you > are one. Last I read this group ends with the fall of the Roman empire in the west.  SignatureDumb people have one thing going for them. They cannot do stupid things. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4151 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12 Sat Jul 4 00:34:11 EDT 2009 > >>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > >>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Last I read this group ends with the fall of the Roman empire in the west. Butt out. > > >>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > > >>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Butt out. He's wrong about the group charter (which, IIRC, specifies up to around 1200 AD). Besides which, here's an interesting tidbit for you: "At least two Neolithic longbows have been found in Britain. One was found in Somerset. It was identified as Neolithic by radiocarbon dating in the 1950s, much to the consternation of some archaeologists at the time. A second was found in southern Scotland at Rotten Bottom. It was made of yew and dates to between 4040 and 3640 BC. A reconstructed bow had a draw-weight of about 23 kgf (50 lbf) and a range of 50 to 55 metres. The famous Ötzi the Iceman, of the Chalcolithic period (Copper Age), found in the Ötztaler Alps, bore a bow very similar to the Rotten Bottom example, with a bowstring of nettle or flax fibre." http://www.edinformatics.com/inventions_inventors/longbow.htm The longbow, therefore, is perhaps 6000 years old - certainly within the remit of the group even if you restricted it to Roman and pre- Roman times - and therefore likely was known anywhere that Europeans knew about. Whether it was in widespread use is another matter. Wood doesn't survive well - the three finds above were in very unusual circumstances, and you can't count on Neolithic humans chucking longbows into convenient peat bogs or glaciers. > He's wrong about the group charter (which, IIRC, > specifies up to around 1200 AD). Liar. > > He's wrong about the group charter (which, IIRC, > > specifies up to around 1200 AD). > > Liar. You're accusing me of lying about what I remember? Fascinating. Well, clearly you're not talking about the charter, as the only specific is what I recall and not what is written. Your insanity got to the point of imagining you can read minds, now? > You're accusing me of lying about what I remember? It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. You are lying. If you weren't, you would have present a cite up front, instead you dodge the issue. Why? Because you know what the truth is, and it isn't what you've been saying. Liar. > > You're accusing me of lying about what I remember? > > It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. You are > lying. If you weren't, you would have present a cite > up front, instead you dodge the issue. You really do need a dictionary. I'm not dodging the issue, but I'm not your pet dog to go fetch something for you. If you want to play fetch, YOU fetch. > Why? Because you know what the truth is, and it isn't > what you've been saying. Nobody "knows" what the truth is, because everybody could potentially be mistaken, so you're wrong right at the start. Secondly, unless you claim to have a mind-reading machine, you cannot say what I do and do not know. You can only say what you think. And that means you cannot claim what you say is a statement of fact, you can only claim it is an accusation. I observe, however, that the three of you are usually very quick to supply links when someone is actually wrong, but never supply links when you think you might be. Me - I supply links when it's stuff I think links would be useful for and a simple Google search will produce too much noise to identify what's important. > > You're accusing me of lying about what I remember? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why? Because you know what the truth is, and it isn't > what you've been saying. This must be why you were happy to talk about 40,000 year old bone flutes. Read many contemporary books on them, eh? You were almost civilized for a moment on that thread, but clearly couldn't bring yourself to stay that way. You're not fooling anyone. You, Matt and Christopher are attacking these threads not because of any perceived non-ancientness about them (because, as I've shown, both did exist even in what you called ancient times, so even by your own standards you are wrong). You, Matt and Christopher are attacking these threads because a person you don't like created them and because people you don't like reply to them. That is your sole reason. You have no other. That's why you went from being civilized to being hateful on the flute thread, too. People you didn't like turned up, and you HAD to then attack everyone in sight just to show how macho you were. Get some lithium, grow up, and stop being such a moron. You've got the capacity to be a great person, it is a shame you're so bent on destroying that. > Liar. You sound a lot like Aggy. Mind you, you're a failure like Aggy, as well. Bet you couldn't render the Titanic any better than he could. >>>>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately >>>>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> are one. >> Last I read this group ends with the fall of the Roman empire in the west. > Butt out. Cute but the description of what constitutes ancient for purposes of this newsgroup is as I said. I suggest you learn the year limits as well as what constitutes history. SignatureThey hate us for our freedom to call Bush a retard. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4147 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 Sat Jul 4 08:36:57 EDT 2009 > Butt out. What, you're too f.cked up in the head to know what "Ancient" means, too? Man, Mensa *Seriously* lowered their standards.... > >>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > >>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Last I read this group ends with the fall of the Roman empire in the west. Not according to the group definition, posted here regularly. >>>>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately >>>>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not according to the group definition, posted here regularly. Perhaps you will have to post it again as I have not seen it here in years. SignatureThe national mythos of ancient Greece was the Iliad. The national mythos of the United States is WWII. In both cases the truth is far different from the mythos. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4152 http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9 Sat Jul 4 08:39:29 EDT 2009 > >>>>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > >>>>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Perhaps you will have to post it again as I have not seen it here in years. Strange. I've seen it numerous times in just the last few months. Perhaps you should spend more time reading posts rather than insulting people. There doesn't seem much point in me posting it yet again if you're not reading it when others post it. >>>>>>> There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately >>>>>>> troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> Not according to the group definition, posted here regularly. >> Perhaps you will have to post it again as I have not seen it here in years. > Strange. I've seen it numerous times in just the last few months. > Perhaps you should spend more time reading posts rather than insulting > people. There doesn't seem much point in me posting it yet again if > you're not reading it when others post it. Then you will have absolutely no problem posting again in this thread. SignatureZionism is a political cult dedicated to murdering Palestinians and stealing their property. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4165 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12 Sun Jul 5 01:13:57 EDT 2009 > > > There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > > > troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the presence of trolls, then. Glad to see you're finally admitting you > are one. Imipak, This is an interesting discussion because chain mail, plate armor and versions of the longbow were present in ancient times. It is silly to associate the longbow only with English. In fact, there were a number of groups in the middle East and Africa that used the longbow although as a weapon it did not play the major role that it did in medieval warfare for good number of reasons. In fact, the Greeks soon found out that ballistae were a better investment than training of men in the use of heavy bows (despite the lower rate of fire). Anyway, this discussion is rendered a bit confusing because there were many versions of chain mail and various reinforcements of chain mail. And, of course, the penetration was dependent on the proximity and the angle of impact. Not all longbows were fired at an angle of 45 degrees. My personal guess is that these weapons were extremely effective in short ranges and for mass volleys up to to 200 feet or thereabouts. But like any weapon, its tactical use was far more decisive than its penetrating power. > > > > There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately > > > > troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > But like any weapon, its tactical use was far more decisive than its > penetrating power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7niAprU8z4 Well, it varied. In the Battle of Hastings, the Hauscarls' shield wall was completely immune to the Norman longbows. In the end, William had to use the same method as Hannibal. In fact, it was so exactly the same (feint, retreat, heavy cavalry in either side) it seems certain he studied the manoever well. The Saxons used a methodology closer to the Roman approach - turtle formation using the kite shields and round shields of the day - but had obviously not learned from the Roman defeat as they were utterly destroyed in the same way. In other battles, gigantic salvos of longbow arrows (nasty little buggers they were) butchered troops that had no shields but relied just on body armour. Shields could be made tougher - and also be made disposable, allowing for quick replacement. Quick-change chainmail does not exist and even 6-in-1 welded-link chainmail isn't going to survive a direct strike at short (or even medium) range with a war arrow. Longbows had a decent rate of fire and were also very good against fortified positions. (It's hard to make a wall from uncemented stone - drystone - that's high enough to be safe from a longbow.) True, ballistas were nastier, but they're not so mobile and that makes them tougher to use in rough country like Wales - one reason Wales never really submitted to the Romans - and/or heavily-wooded environments. A ballista could certainly smash open a Dun easily enough - but you'd need to get it there first. A few thousand archers, on the other hand, would be no problem. > Imipak, > > This is an interesting discussion Thank you, Mr. Left Hand. No, Mr. Right Hand, Thank YOU! You're so smart and your Daddy isn't unemployed and Mommy.... YOUR Mommy doesn't drink and beat you with a slipper. That's right, Mr. Left Hand. But I want to be your friend anyway. Really, Mr. Right Hand? Yes, Mr. Left Hand. We can hang out after school and, um, and do stuff just like the other kids do, and I'll never tease you for being on Welfare. Really, Mr. Right Hand? Can we have sleep-overs are each others house, and go to each others birthday parties? Of course, Mr. Left Hand. That sounds GREAT, Mr. Left...errr...Right Hand! > The Vikings had longbows and Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. Find a native English speaker and ask them what it means. > > The Vikings had longbows and > > Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. > > Find a native English speaker and ask them > what it means. Read the charter. Oops, forgot you can't read. (Otherwise, you'd have seen the post where I note longbows are 6,000+ years old.) > > Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. > > > Find a native English speaker and ask them > > what it means. > > Read the No, seriously, "Ancient." >>> The Vikings had longbows and >> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Read the charter. Oops, forgot you can't read. (Otherwise, you'd have > seen the post where I note longbows are 6,000+ years old.) In the context of chain mail you are quite obviously lying. SignatureHodie tertio Nonas Iulias MMIX est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14 Sun Jul 5 01:14:57 EDT 2009 > >>> The Vikings had longbows and > >> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > In the context of chain mail you are quite obviously lying. Did I say in the above reference that it was in the context of chainmail? No? Then I repeat that you are clearly incapable of reading. http://www.helium.com/items/1112513-history-of-chainmail Chainmail was invented around 500 BC. Same region as the longbow, curiously enough. So it's still ancient, even within your restrictive definition (and you can bloody well use Google to look it up - get up off your lazy arse and do something for a change, don't wait for us to spoonfeed you information). So clearly I'm not lying, and since this is stuff you already know (since the Romans acquired chainmail from the Celts), it can only follow that you are attempting to slander me because you know the data is sound and can't avoid it this time. You've simply no possible escape, your pathetic need to attack has caused you to overreach yourself and you know it. >>>>> The Vikings had longbows and >>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Did I say in the above reference that it was in the context of > chainmail? Yes. There was a lively discussion a while back (fortunately troll-free) on the merits of longbows versus chainmail and platemail. I discovered some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic that might be of interest. SignatureThe squattertowns will continue to expand until the terrorism ceases. The provocation will continue until the response ceases. The snakebites will continue until morale improves. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4149 http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10 Sun Jul 5 04:47:07 EDT 2009 > >>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > >>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic > that might be of interest. No, that might be in the context of the thread, the post you replied to was in the context of you claiming it was impossible for longbows to have existed in ancient times. I've shown that they not only existed but pre-existed whatever timeframe you're wanting to define as ancient. How can it be impossible for long bows (4000 BC) to be used against chainmail (500 BC) in ancient times? Curious minds want you to answer your own challenge. Of course, you can't (and won't) - you're much much too interested in being an arsehole. >>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and >>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic >> that might be of interest. > No, that might be in the context of the thread, the post you replied > to was in the context of you claiming it was impossible for longbows > to have existed in ancient times. Your idea of ancient times is NOT a subject for this newsgroup. > I've shown that they not only > existed but pre-existed whatever timeframe you're wanting to define as > ancient. How can it be impossible for long bows (4000 BC) to be used > against chainmail (500 BC) in ancient times? Curious minds want you to > answer your own challenge. Of course, you can't (and won't) - you're > much much too interested in being an arsehole. If you wish to bring up some usage of either that is within the charter limits you can do so without any hassle. In fact if you find a written mention of either within the time frame described in the charter of this newsgroup you will have done some interesting research. I am unaware of any. SignatureThe national mythos of ancient Greece was the Iliad. The national mythos of the United States is WWII. In both cases the truth is far different from the mythos. -- The Iron Webmaster, 4152 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4 Tue Jul 7 22:13:36 EDT 2009 > >>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > >>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > of either within the time frame described in the charter of this newsgroup you > will have done some interesting research. I am unaware of any. So you are now saying that documented usage within Roman times is outside the charter that you've never read. Interesting. No, I put it to you that since you're slagging off the Roman references that you don't give a f.ck about the charter or indeed any research, that your sole concern is continuing to attack those you dislike for no reason beyond your dislike of them. >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > sole concern is continuing to attack those you dislike for no reason > beyond your dislike of them. You cannot be as stupid as you pretend. Therefore I can only assume it is deliberate. SignatureHodie sexto Idus Iulias MMIX est -- The Ferric Webcaesar http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10 Fri Jul 10 11:42:35 EDT 2009 > >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > You cannot be as stupid as you pretend. Therefore I can only assume it is > deliberate. You are the one saying chainmail and longbows were not documented ancient history. The Romans used chainmail and were subject to longbow attacks, describing both in their histories. The onus is on you to explain how these can be reconciled. Evasion is not explanation. If you continue to evade, the following conclusions can be drawn: (a) You don't know what the charter for the group actually says /or/ you do, and it says what I said I thought it said. (b) You know damn well that both chainmail and longbows are valid topics for an ancient history group, but you don't want to appear admitting I might be right on something. (c) Your sole concern is to harass and attack those you dislike for no better reason than you dislike them. (d) Your knowledge of the subject of armour and weapons in Romans times is /either/ non-existent /or/ is good enough for you to know you're wrong, but you've not got the guts to admit it. Every time you evade, duck and dodge the point being made, in order to launch a verbal attack, is an admission of defeat on your part, albeit covert. Do the right thing and admit you were wrong. It's not hard. > > >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > > >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > launch a verbal attack, is an admission of defeat on your part, albeit > covert. Do the right thing and admit you were wrong. It's not hard. Give it up. Neither the longbow nor chain mail has anything to do with the Jews or the Bible so Matt is going to spam any such subjects out of existence. He is really sick and there is nothing you can do about it. > > > >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > > > >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > out of existence. He is really sick and there is nothing you can do > about it. Hmmm. Let me check the Online Advice Column on this... http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/03mar/ufng005344.gif Ok, looks like you're right. > > > > >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > > > > >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Ok, looks like you're right. Heh, funny. Imipak, I am planning to go to St. Petersburg next year just to visit hermitage again, was there in 2007 for a week and was not able to see everything, its huge, this place is magical, especially for a history buff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitage_Museum I would like to invite you, ADR, Weeland, Dragonblaze and even JTEM (if he agrees to do my loundry wile were there). LOL..... > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The Vikings had longbows and > > > > > >>>>>>>> Again, "Ancient." A-N-C-I-E-N-T. [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > I would like to invite you, ADR, Weeland, Dragonblaze and even JTEM > (if he agrees to do my loundry wile were there). LOL..... Fascinating - I wonder if the Albert and Victoria museum (a much smaller place, from the looks of it) is based on that. You might want to take some close-up images of any stone-carved writing: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17405-computer-reveals-stone-tablet-handwr iting-in-a-flash.html If the article is correct, you'd be able to tell if two pieces were produced by the same person. On Jul 10, 4:42 pm, igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 4:07 pm, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > I would like to invite you, ADR, Weeland, Dragonblaze and even JTEM > (if he agrees to do my loundry wile were there). LOL..... Fascinating - I wonder if the Albert and Victoria museum (a much smaller place, from the looks of it) is based on that. You might want to take some close-up images of any stone-carved writing: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17405-computer-reveals-stone-tablet-handwr iting-in-a-flash.html If the article is correct, you'd be able to tell if two pieces were produced by the same person. 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 Maybe but you have to wonder if how they made letters might change through time and between simple and when they are trying to be fancy. On Jul 5, 1:47 am, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > imipak wrote: > > On Jul 4, 10:15 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > some interesting Youtube demonstrations on research done on this topic > that might be of interest. No, that might be in the context of the thread, the post you replied to was in the context of you claiming it was impossible for longbows to have existed in ancient times. I've shown that they not only existed but pre-existed whatever timeframe you're wanting to define as ancient. How can it be impossible for long bows (4000 BC) to be used against chainmail (500 BC) in ancient times? Curious minds want you to answer your own challenge. Of course, you can't (and won't) - you're much much too interested in being an arsehole. 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 I have to agree. The English long bow is made from a simple piece of wood along a boundry between heart wood and outer wood so it acts like it is made of two woods glued together. However there is nothing about the bow that would have prevented similiar bows being made shortly after the bow was invented. The later versions did have things like cord wraped hand grips and horn/bone end pieces to prevent wear but those are at best refinements that didn't actually impact performance much if at all. Similiar bows were certainly made in the stone age because some modern stone age people made/make similiar bows. You do need a good bow wood. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.