Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Whine and Bitch about people long after they become interesting to talk about
User avatar
GitGud
Quality Poster
Posts: 1505
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:41 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by GitGud » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:55 am

Crossbows of that early timeframe were monsters. Not even as high powerd as modern ones but if you could fling a piece if steel and wood some hundert meters at a target with the power to pierce a person or an horse....you have a dam fine weapon. If you use them right.
Thex wherent as fast as regular bow troops but the bolts were cheaper because they didnt needed as much material. And they were not as likely to break if you hit a hard target on the wrong spot. The best tactic with bows was the arrow rain on soft targets, to wound as many men as possible before the could attack. Crossbows could be used allmost like modern snipers to hit a possible high value target or troop concentrations. Knights on horses where primary pickings, because often they stormed to lead their troops to the enemy. And any wound could kill you even after the battle. Hits from arrows and bolts got infected allmost all the time because the tips were stucked in the ground before battle so you could pick a new one faster for the next draw. Get hit by dirty arrow, say hello to sepsis extremis
I will return when i the times are dire.
"I had this nurse yesterday who was super careful giving me morphine and she sais "this could kill 4 of me lols"

That was fun.
-Auli

User avatar
mad bum
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 17988
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:15 pm
Location: In spoony's rape dungeon

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by mad bum » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:31 pm

I think the real danger of crossbows is they were the medieval version of guns in the fact that they could teach a peasant how to fire one in 10 minutes.
Image
SpoilerShow
phpBB [video]

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by rabidtictac » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:18 pm

It was for that reason many places limited who was allowed to own or fire a crossbow. The real fear was of a commoner being able to kill a mounted knight in full armor. Remember that a knight in armor was both the medieval version of a tank as well as being nobility. Not only were they your direct superior in a feudal society (possibly even owning you as part of the land that was theirs), but they were using the best and most expensive armor in the lands. They were very worried about the possibility of being killed by a scumbag peasant with no breeding. :lol:

The invention of crossbows and later guns was really what killed knights as a concept. Militias fielding crossbows, swords and shields could do nearly as well as dismounted knights at a fraction of the cost. The concept of the knight lived on briefly in the form of cavalry using sabres, lances and pistols, but even that became impractical once automatic weapons came along.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
GitGud
Quality Poster
Posts: 1505
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:41 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by GitGud » Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:35 am

mad bum wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:31 pm
I think the real danger of crossbows is they were the medieval version of guns in the fact that they could teach a peasant how to fire one in 10 minutes.
It takes a little bit longer.... but the baseline is right. If yot had the equipment and an instructor it took about 2-3 months to train someone in the art of shooting. You must acount for the timeframe. Most of the peasants could not read or had more than basic knowlege of any kind of tech. As an civilian using some kind of deadly weapon in war? Haram because warriors were another class of people. You had to break it to the folks that they can that shit too. Then teaxh em to use the crossbow. Explain them why it could destroy the weapon when you dryfire it without the undrrstanding of the words "stored energy" and "energy transfer".
I will return when i the times are dire.
"I had this nurse yesterday who was super careful giving me morphine and she sais "this could kill 4 of me lols"

That was fun.
-Auli

User avatar
Kama
Posts: 1963
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:48 am

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by Kama » Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:59 pm

In a world ravaged by nuclear war. One man, wearing a Superman shirt does his best to survive the harsh wastelands.

Mad Miguel.

User avatar
Kugelfisch
The white ghost
Posts: 46453
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 1:36 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by Kugelfisch » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:35 pm

Old Black Man wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:35 pm
VoiceOfReasonPast wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:57 pm
I can see guns having went through a similar phase as crossbows where knights were bitching about that stuff being broken af because you can just hand that stuff to a bunch of dirty peasants and have them tear shit up real good.
Pretty much. I used to love medieval history as a kid and remembered accounts of the crossbow from people back then to be along the lines of “Shit we are seriously fucked now.”
Knights were the ultimate hypocrites. Being all >muh cavalier's rules and insisting on the use of weaponry all "Final Destination, no blunts, swords only". But they were all fielding pole axes after all because noble intentions and a sword don't let you kill that other dude in full plate as well as just crushing the fucker's head.
SpoilerShow
Image
Cannons bray, the mighty quake!
Centuries of blood becomes erased!
I am the white ghost!

User avatar
VoiceOfReasonPast
Supreme Shitposter
Posts: 47635
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:33 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by VoiceOfReasonPast » Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:57 pm

They just wanted those swords to brag about their wealth privilege.
Autism attracts more autism. Sooner or later, an internet nobody will attract the exact kind of fans - and detractors - he deserves.
-Yours Truly

4 wikia: static -> vignette

User avatar
drisko
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 11:12 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by drisko » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:25 am

Kugelfisch wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:35 pm
Old Black Man wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:35 pm
VoiceOfReasonPast wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:57 pm
I can see guns having went through a similar phase as crossbows where knights were bitching about that stuff being broken af because you can just hand that stuff to a bunch of dirty peasants and have them tear shit up real good.
Pretty much. I used to love medieval history as a kid and remembered accounts of the crossbow from people back then to be along the lines of “Shit we are seriously fucked now.”
Knights were the ultimate hypocrites. Being all >muh cavalier's rules and insisting on the use of weaponry all "Final Destination, no blunts, swords only". But they were all fielding pole axes after all because noble intentions and a sword don't let you kill that other dude in full plate as well as just crushing the fucker's head.
Well it is easier to just stick a pole arm in a peasant's hands and teach them enough to not stab themselves rather than spend months on proper sword techniques. Of course they could have just trained them previously, made a rule that every peasant had to do some military time, but that might put nasty ideas that nobles are not the be all end all as was said.

User avatar
rabidtictac
Posts: 20320
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 9:25 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by rabidtictac » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:28 am

A lot of peasants had swords actually. You have to clarify if you mean early, high or late middle ages. Early middle ages, yeah sure, people didn't have as many swords. In the Viking era and shit, people would pass down swords for generations and good swords were very prized. Many soldiers in viking society used a seax or fighting axe instead of a sword because they were cheaper. But the main weapon of the viking was a short spear. They were spearmen fighting in blocs just like the greeks did.

But when you get into high and late middle ages, steel was very abundant. You also have to take into account regions. Vikings didn't have as much access to steel as other parts of Europe did. Not only was steel more common, but the welding techniques became cheaper over time and nearly as good as pattern-welding. And there will always be a shit version of every good product, and it's important to remember that too. Sure, a custom-made knight's sword might cost some money. It would have a crest on it probably and custom scrollwork. But a bargain-basement cheapo sword could be had cheaply from a standard smith.

No, peasants had swords. What they didn't always have was permission to CARRY weapons. Aside from the knife, which is where the whole messer meme came from.

"You can only carry a knife"
"Okay give me the biggest knife you have"
"Oh well I have this knife that's as long as a sword"
"sick!"

Even so, the point I'm getting to (slowly) is that a sword is not any use against an armored opponent. Dismounted knights used polearms, maces, flails, daggers and hammers against other knights because those are the most effective weapons up close.

There's much proof that peasants had swords btw. What squeezed out knights was the rise of mercenary armies and town levies in conjunction with higher technology like we talked about. The crossbow was one important innovation, and later guns. But you also have to consider the cheap and available swords as well as advancements in spears. The development of pike blocs in conjunction with ranged squads of crossbowmen/musketeers created an effective hard counter to men on horseback. And the cost to field a levy with chainmail, a sword, a buckler and a pike was far, FAR less than to field a single knight.

Another feature of the late middle ages was a loss of distinction between nobility and commoners on the battlefield. Many of those dressed in full knightly regalia were actually just men-at-arms and little better than mercenaries or common soldiers. As armor and weapons became cheaper and more abundant, the levies and mercs became better and better-equipped while the knights stayed the same (at the top.) The end result was a dismounted "noble" knight eventually looked little different than a common foot soldier. Both were heavily armored and carried a pole weapon and probably a secondary weapon with a buckler.

And that is why the knight died on the battlefield. TL;DR there is no teeldeer history is long and boring much like my shitposts.
SpoilerShow
It is true though that pole weapons are generally easier to teach than swords. The range advantage makes up for a lot of the skill gap.
RAPEMAN wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:42 pm
>liberal: ban x
>trump: yeah ban x
>liberal: no bro x is awesome

User avatar
AngrySpoonySnob
Posts: 2552
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:36 pm

Re: Flustered Fernando and the Seven Pesos

Post by AngrySpoonySnob » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:49 pm

Why didnt the knights just +5 their armor or use lightsabers?
Respect my gangsta
- Wackashi Snitchnine

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], BloodKnightDollfie, Google [Bot] and 46 guests