0
Medieval Warfare
Medieval Warfare refers to warfare during the Middle Ages (5th – 15th century). This period saw a significant change in military weapons and tactics, with the introduction of gun powder, personal armor, and siege warfare.
688 Questions
How accurate is a siege tower?
A siege tower is a tower on a wheeled platform to allow the attackers to climb up it and over the castle walls. Accurate doesn't come into it.
How did the English longbow compare with the crossbow used by the genoes?
the longbow has a longer range, and a better rate of fire. the bow was easy to disassemble, so the bowstring could be taken off in the rain, to protect it.
the crossbow was more powerful, but fired a heaver bolt, meaning there was less range. it was susceptible to failure in the rain, as the string could not be easily removed, and it took a lot more effort to prepare it for fire, by winching the bowstring onto its trigger after each shot.
However, the crossbow also could be learnt far quicker and easier than the longbow, which took years of training and constant practice to be good with - which meant that while the crossbow itself was more complex to make, its use was cheaper for training soldiers.
A hedgerowis a line of plantings which are trained to grow together to create a dense barrier known as a hedge.
The practice of hedge laying is ancient, with evidence to suggest that neolithic humans were among the first to use hedges. Hedgers, professionals who specialize in laying hedges, are found primarily in Ireland and United Kingdom, although they work in other regions of the world as well. Hedgerows can be made with trees, shrubs, plants, and grasses. A number of factors can dictate the materials used, including the purpose of the hedge, the climate, and the aesthetic preference of the person laying the hedge. Some hedges are hundreds of years old, requiring periodic relaying and maintenance. These examples of living history are under increasing threat, and some steps have been taken to protect them from destruction. One of the most basic reasons to establish a hedgerow is to create a barrier, which may be symbolic or practical.
I believe a blastilla is a medieval siege weapon,like a catault,exept offensive
What was a watchmans weapons in Medieval Times?
Watchmen, guards, and other common soldiers would have had basic inexpensive weapons. For a town watchman this might have been as basic as a large sturdy knife. Other inexpensive weapons include spears and other pole arms such as a guisearm.
What are words in the medieval ages that start with the letters yz?
Year 1000 was approximately in the middle of the Middle Ages
A siege shelter is a fortified area to protect other people from getting hurt by catapult and weapon fire.
So that we can understand and see what these weapons were like.
How was block printing used in the middle ages?
Block printing was done by using individual letter 'stamps' to create pages of writing without any need for handwriting.
Block printing is the direct predecessor to the pruinting press, which used printing blocks arranged and then (using a wine press) printing pages at a time. The printing press is the predecessor of modern day printers.
Can a sword cut through medieval armor?
A heavy sword could cut through light armor if it was skillfully used. Glancing blows, light swords, or heavy armor made the sword fairly useless.
What wars were in 1258 AD in the middle ages?
There were at least two.
One was between what historians call the Empire of Nicaea and the Latin Empire, which has been set up in Constantinople by crusaders in 1204. The Empire if Nicaea had territory in the Byzantine Empire that had never been take by the crusaders, and it finally reestablished Byzantine control in 1261.
The other was a hostility between England and France over lands confiscated from King John of England by King Phillip II of France in 1202. This conflict ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1259.
How effective was a chaimail coif?
Although there is no better or worse in terms of whether an iron helmet or iron chainmail coif was more effective, and how effective coifs were in general. There are clear factors to look at however:
- A helmet is more solid than a coif, so injuries from direct hits are better protected by a helmet, but at the same time, a coif can merge quite seamlessly with a chainmail shirt, and with no gaps except the front of the face. This means for a change in dynamics in close combat, as there are different exposed areas for each.
- A maille coif is much more easily repaired than a helmet, if some rings are hacked out of a coif, then the user need only fix the hole with some new rings and rivet them back together again, whereas damage to a helmet could mean the need to fix the dent with a smith or even needing to remake it from scratch with severe enough damage.
- Maille coifs were more expensive than dark-age helmets, but were cheaper than advanced Medieval helmets, with more expensive armour used as a utilitarian fashion statement by noblemen.
- Sometimes, both are combined, with solid helmets having chainmail hanging off it, providing solid skull protection, but also flexible neck protection.
- Maille in general protects superbly against sword cuts, and axe chops (apart from the blunt force trauma behind them). Stabs and shots unfortunately would separate the rings and pierce through. Later Medieval arming swords had finer thrusting points, specifically to thrust through gaps in plate armour, and pierce easily through chainmail underneath it or chainmail on the body instead of it.
Sources: Experience in Historical European Martial Arts and general knowledge in Medieval warfare.
What are the types of arrow for crossbows and longbows used in Medieval period?
The first simple type is the Broadhead, a hunting arrow that was triangular/delta shaped and thus was barbed and caused great injuries to unarmoured opponents during the shot and when it was being removed as well. Broadheads were able to pierce some types of simple armour, but were ineffective against a lot of stronger armours. These were commonly used for hunting.
The second is called the Bodkin, this was an elongated pyramid shape, and was designed specifically for penetrating armour. They were able to pierce any armour with a decent war bow up to chainmail, but anything stronger than that would cause difficulty for Bodkin heads at longer range. Bodkin arrows were banned in any tournament, as it was the medieval equivalent to bringing armour piercing bullets to a simple shooting range.
The third was the fire head, just pitch soaked cloth wrapped around the shaft on top of a normal arrowhead for slight penetration, and to retain the correct forward weight needed. These were not used for killing directly, but were used to ignite flammable objects such as thatch, or as intimidation.
There were many other head types as well, but with much more specialist purposes, such as archery fishing.
A Mott Flail mower is a mower that is pulled behind a tractor, propelled by a power take off shaft from the tractor itself. It has a cutting bar, that has numerous knives attached that are held out straight by centrifugal force. This imower is mostly used for fine lawn cutting. You see them mostly these days cutting the center of the highways. Mott was the first with the flail mower, only they were called The Hammer Knife Mower, As others copied the design, flail became the most common name for this type mower. Mott is currently owned by the Alamo group. As old as these mowers are getting, most parts are available from Alamo (http://www.alamo-industrial.com). Sharpening is a chore. as there are many knife sets to deal with, for example a 72 inch has approx 168 knives. Each set (two) are held in by a clevis pin along with a cotter pin. The heavy duty knives were held in with a self locking bolt and nut that clamped to a steel ring that held the knives. The Flail type mower is well adapted to tall grass. They are also good to use with any rocks or stumps as the knives will flex rather than bend or break when striking them. One that is kept up with greasing /maintenance and not letting it rust out, will last many, many years of use. The design of the knives or blades decide whether the mower is fine or rough cut.
How much would a medieval longbow have cost?
In England in the 13th Century a bow would cost between 12 pence and 18 pence depending on the quality of the wood. 200 years later prices were limited by law but never cost more than 3s 4d or 40 pence. In 1470 there is a record of 12 of the cheaper bows with 120 arrows for 12s 4d, (148 pence).
Is the armor worn by knights bulletproof?
yes
-----
Sorry, no, the armor worn by knights is not bulletproof, unless the bullet has very low energy. In the Renaissance, when personal firearms first appeared, armorers made heavier armor than had been used, and tested it by a firing musket into it, with the dent being proof that the ball had not penetrated. The problem is that they were never able to make armor heavy enough to withstand the heaviest musket balls, without making it too heavy to be worn.
The mounted knights had long been in trouble before the introduction of gunpowder, because their armor was not arrow-proof. They were cut down by the hundreds when they charged against the English at Agencourt, and the thing that was most murderous was the English archers.
The Real Answer:
Yes: most of the high quality Milanese armours of the 15th/16th Century were bulletproof to a greater or lesser degree and these "harnesses" were of a comparible weight to the armour and equipment fielded by today's soldiers (50-70Kg)
At the time of Agincourt the reason why english archers were such an integral role in the battlewas not becuase the bodkin could pierce the armour (it couldn't) it was becuase the arrows killed the horses trapping the knights underneath the horse or leaving them to slog their way through the churned mud towards the english line.
Samurai in 16th-19th century Japan bought and maintained western style plate armour that was tameshi gusoku or bullet-tested armour with the last recorded use being in the 1877 satsuma rebellion.
Australian outlaw and folk hero Ned Kelly was famous for winning gun-fights against the police using his cobbled-together plate.
the reason for the decline in armour was more due to it being extremely expensive and the impossiblity of fielding a large force of steel clad Man-at-arms.
So yes Armour can provide protection from gunfire though I would point out that Steel Plate has NOT been tested against modern ballistics and I would advise you NOT to test it out for yourself.
AnswerIt, of course, depends on the time period. I'm assuming you are comparing armor to firearms available at the same time.Early firearms were notoriously inaccurate, slow to reload, and generally with poor ballistic characteristics. However, from the outset, they were able to easily penetrate contemporary chainmail armors at "reasonable" (50+ yard) distances. Shortly after their introduction in Europe (roughly mid 1400s), plate armor makers began to thicken breastplates and helms in an attempt to stay ahead of the increasing power of firearms.
For about a century or so after their introduction, the better-quality breastplates were "proofed" by firing bullets at them, to indicate their trustworthiness. So, YES, the better quality breastplates were bulletproof from a contemporary firearm, up until the early 1700s. However, none of the other plates of the armor suit (legs/arms/groin) recieved the same upgrading, as it required ever thicker armor to remain bulletproof. And, of course, armor made a few decades before would no longer remain bulletproof against the current generation firearms.
With increasing enhancements, particularly the introduction of the flintlock, the muzzle velocity of the bullet became too high to be able to protect against, unless one wore a suit so thick as to be impossible to move in.
Thus, there was a period of "qualified immunity" between 1450 and 1650 or so, in which time a current armor suit could stop a current-generation firearm's bullet if it hit the breastplate.
Oriental armors were of such construction as to never be reliably bulletproof against contemporary firearms, though, as noted above, they did import western-style solid breastplate armors well into the 1700s.
Ned Kelly's famous "bulletproof" armor wasn't real armor; rather, it was a 1/2 inch thick cast-iron plate that he wore over his chest only. It was more of a very primitive precursor to the modern-day flak vest than a suit of armor, and was so heavy and bulky as to be nothing more than a curiosity (certainly not something usable by an army).
Finally, the real reasons for the decline of personal armor was in fact the increasing effectiveness of firearms. By 1650, a flintlock smoothbore musket could reliably punch through any thickness of armor plate suit worn, at ranges over 100 yards. With the increasingly cheap production of a flintlock came firearms proliferation, meaning that armies were now being equipped with large fractions of firearms; against such massed firepower, an armored man could no longer be sufficiently protected to enable him to close to melee distance. That is, the range at which a firearm could reliably kill an armored opponent was much greater than melee weapon distance (or, even charging distance when mounted), so armor was no longer effective (and, being no longer effective, was abandoned). Cost had nothing to do with it - indeed, large armies of steel-clad soldiers had been fielded throughout the medieval period (over 600 years prior).
Why did the church ban the use of crossbows?
Something of a stealth weapon, more accurate than hand-draw longbow- and less noisy than a firearm. could penetrate arnor and useful as anti-knight weapon. Also in the bubbub of battle- or in a dense storm- walking in the rain here, the twang of a crossbow firing would be almost inaudible.
