Anonymous comments allowed.
39 comments displayed.
#20
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
Chainmail was only effective against slashing or cutting attacks and weak against thrusting/piercing attacks. Arrows were possibly the most effective weapon against chainmail. Do you even read the **** before you repost it, faggot?
#33 to #20
-
limberlarry ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
Chainmail was effective against most arrows which tended to have a fairly broad head, it was weaker against small pointed piercing weapons like knives and bodkin arrows, but a good suit of mail could withstand a bodkin hit. Generally it was pretty damn effective, with a padded/leather gambeson even blunt trauma was mitigated
#188
-
Awesomecarrot (01/05/2016) [-] If steel plate armour is impervious to bullets, why don't modern soldiers use it?
#192 to #188
-
battletechmech (01/05/2016) [-] **battletechmech used "*roll picture*"**
**battletechmech rolled image**because we invented the armor piercing bullet
**battletechmech rolled image**because we invented the armor piercing bullet
#195 to #192
-
Awesomecarrot (01/05/2016) [-] Why don't we invent armour-piercing bullet armour?
This 'war' stuff solves itself, I swear
This 'war' stuff solves itself, I swear
#196 to #195
-
battletechmech (01/05/2016) [-] ikr? like when people started using gas they invented these weird ass "gas masks" like crazy how nature do that.
#238
-
basichaharemix (01/05/2016) [-] I remember this being posted before. Weren't a majority of these completely false?
#155
-
datmine (01/05/2016) [-] As someone who is interested in the high medieval ages i can say that some of these are total ******** .
#128
-
SubjectThree (01/05/2016) [-] --chainmail was very weak to arrows.
--Casualty rates remained constant throughout battles.
--Mostly right
--High-born commanders took chivalry too seriously, which caused a lot of tactical problems.
--Most of the time, archers didn't "aim" for anything unless it was within 70 yards to them.
--If you're using the longbow like a machine gun, you're an idiot. That's how composite bows were used, and comparatively arrows cost about as much as 5.56 rounds do today.
--Somewhat true. Conscripted bowmen tended to use cheap materials in their bows.
--True.
--Guns COULD pierce plate armor easily. Armorsmiths had to sacrifice twice as much material and time to make a bulletproof plate armor. they'd shoot their armor before giving it to their customer, proving it was immune to bullets (hence the term "bulletproof". Proof it could resist bullets).
--That is subjective. Rome conquered more land than the normans.
--Everyone had a battle doctrine for every foe they knew of.
--So much wrong with this one.
--True, but it took a long time for them to die out entirely.
--No, a longsword is also known as a hand-in-a-half sword, because it could easily be wielded in either one hand, or two. Greatswords did exist; the claymore and zweihander swords were primarily anti-cavalry swords.
--Casualty rates remained constant throughout battles.
--Mostly right
--High-born commanders took chivalry too seriously, which caused a lot of tactical problems.
--Most of the time, archers didn't "aim" for anything unless it was within 70 yards to them.
--If you're using the longbow like a machine gun, you're an idiot. That's how composite bows were used, and comparatively arrows cost about as much as 5.56 rounds do today.
--Somewhat true. Conscripted bowmen tended to use cheap materials in their bows.
--True.
--Guns COULD pierce plate armor easily. Armorsmiths had to sacrifice twice as much material and time to make a bulletproof plate armor. they'd shoot their armor before giving it to their customer, proving it was immune to bullets (hence the term "bulletproof". Proof it could resist bullets).
--That is subjective. Rome conquered more land than the normans.
--Everyone had a battle doctrine for every foe they knew of.
--So much wrong with this one.
--True, but it took a long time for them to die out entirely.
--No, a longsword is also known as a hand-in-a-half sword, because it could easily be wielded in either one hand, or two. Greatswords did exist; the claymore and zweihander swords were primarily anti-cavalry swords.
#175 to #128
-
longsword (01/05/2016) [-] bruh
>a longsword is also known as a hand-in-a-half
>greatsword
>zweihänder primarily anti-cavalry
it's hand-and-a-half as in it is designed to be usable with either two or one hand. also those were not the only longswords; Back in the day the term greatsword did not exist as a classification for weapons so the Zweihänder and other two hand only swords were simply longswords.
And finally the Zweihänder was primarily used by the Landsknechte
a German band of mercenaries who used these weapons to strike a glade
into pike formations or lines of soldiers in general.
fun fact since
that meant to be on the frontline the entire time they were paid double. The life of a Landsknecht generally was not long
also nothing really against you I just like to be that guy when it comes to longswords, hence my name
>a longsword is also known as a hand-in-a-half
>greatsword
>zweihänder primarily anti-cavalry
it's hand-and-a-half as in it is designed to be usable with either two or one hand. also those were not the only longswords; Back in the day the term greatsword did not exist as a classification for weapons so the Zweihänder and other two hand only swords were simply longswords.
And finally the Zweihänder was primarily used by the Landsknechte
a German band of mercenaries who used these weapons to strike a glade
into pike formations or lines of soldiers in general.
fun fact since
that meant to be on the frontline the entire time they were paid double. The life of a Landsknecht generally was not long
also nothing really against you I just like to be that guy when it comes to longswords, hence my name
#206
-
bwiedieter (01/05/2016) [-]
Holy **** I don´t know where to begin to point out what´s nonsense. Whoever made this has what we Germans call "gefährliches Halbwissen", "dangerous half-knowledge".
#184 to #119
-
holycrapimacupcake (01/05/2016) [-] Because OP just slapped this up here with no research.
#7
-
anon (01/05/2016) [-]
how can you confirm that nearly all knights suffered from PTSD? This is something that im very curious about because on one hand you can get a vet who is competently fine and the other a absolute wreck.
#29 to #7
-
limberlarry ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-]
Its an exaggeration ,but a plausible one. There are plenty of descriptions from the time of the mental state of combat veterans, and it tends to sound a lot like what we would call PTSD nowadays
#31 to #7
-
pennydragon ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] The source seems to be three texts written by a 14th century (the 1300s) French knight Geoffroi de Charny who was a diplomat and adviser of King John II.
He was apparently writing of the many difficulties that knights faced and what knights must prepare for and endure. It was apparently advice in how to deal with difficulties like terrible fear, seeing horrific violence done to humans, and feeling powerless or overwhelmed in the chaos and destruction of battle.
Despite what the image above says, it doesn't prove that most knights had PTSD exactly. It just implies that they had the capacity to suffer the same, since this guy may have known that other prospective knights would face challenges that could greatly dishearten them.
news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/medieval-knights-ptsd-111220.htm
sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress
He was apparently writing of the many difficulties that knights faced and what knights must prepare for and endure. It was apparently advice in how to deal with difficulties like terrible fear, seeing horrific violence done to humans, and feeling powerless or overwhelmed in the chaos and destruction of battle.
Despite what the image above says, it doesn't prove that most knights had PTSD exactly. It just implies that they had the capacity to suffer the same, since this guy may have known that other prospective knights would face challenges that could greatly dishearten them.
news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/medieval-knights-ptsd-111220.htm
sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress
#279
-
lazaman (01/05/2016) [-] I feel like some of these are true, but the chain mail and a few others seem fake.
#211
-
franklyimaperson (01/05/2016) [-] >One Sided Slaughters
Well that explains Mount and Blade Warband
Well that explains Mount and Blade Warband
#300 to #211
-
sytheris (01/05/2016) [-]
50 Huscarls, 100 Rhodok Sharpshooters, and around 70 Sarranid Marksman vs 2000 Sarranid troops invading Shariz, the smaller force defending.
So many bodies. So much blood.
The Rhodoks showed up after the Sarranids were beaten back and tried their luck. Those god damn board shields almost ****** me, too.
So many bodies. So much blood.
The Rhodoks showed up after the Sarranids were beaten back and tried their luck. Those god damn board shields almost ****** me, too.
#201
-
guitarassassin (01/05/2016) [-] ...Except Game of Thrones Including the books isn't known for being about large sprawling, world changing battles like LotR is. Rather, it's about what politics were like during the middle-ages. Hell, what battles we DO see in the show are rendered to just small tidbits that really don't show anything. We usually only see the beginning and the aftermath of the battle. The only two battles that come to mind that we see in its entirety are the Battle of Blackwater and the Battle of Castle Black. There are a few other action scenes, but nothing of the same scale.
#172 to #165
-
thatoneiranianguy ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Most of them are flat out ******** and something tells me based on who the OP is he doesn't know or really cares.
#116
-
xsap (01/05/2016) [-] some pro-black tld me that blacks thought whites how to build castles.
few keks were hed cuz he genuinely believed it
few keks were hed cuz he genuinely believed it
#182 to #116
-
thesovereigngrave (01/05/2016) [-] Well of course, don't you know that all European nobility was black people and that in the Renaissance those ******* white people just went through and whitewashed every single depiction of a noble in history?
I'm being sarcastic, but there are black people who actually believe this is true.
I'm being sarcastic, but there are black people who actually believe this is true.
#285 to #182
-
xsap (01/05/2016) [-] yes they actually believe this. like how they believe that king George and marry queen were black and were, Mozart and Beethoven were black, shakespear was black, viking were black. black people came to europe and found whites living in caves and thought them how to build stuff and make tools (even tho they have non of that in Africa)
they think the dark in dark ages is refering to black people
they think the dark in dark ages is refering to black people
#286 to #285
-
thesovereigngrave (01/05/2016) [-] Yeah, black historical revisionists like this are one of those things I'd find absolutely hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that people are actually that ******* stupid.
And it's kind of sad, really. They could take pride in the actual accomplishments of black people in history, but instead they go and make up outrageous tales to "steal" accomplishments from white people.
And it's kind of sad, really. They could take pride in the actual accomplishments of black people in history, but instead they go and make up outrageous tales to "steal" accomplishments from white people.
#299 to #286
-
xsap (01/05/2016) [-] its not just white, they claim blacks built the grate wall of china, blacks built japan, black thought Aztecs everything they know ect... but if you ask them for proof or evidance you'll get the same answer "whites are hiding it" or "they white washed it"
watch this min long vid, its top kek
watch this min long vid, its top kek
#113
-
cackledemon (01/05/2016) [-] great post, but I must correct you on the guns: guns were perfectly capable to pierce armor(old muskets have a greater stopping power than modern handguns and small-caliber rifles), but were costly, unreliable and hard to use;also personal firearms came very late to the battlefield, but once they were integrated middle age warfare ended
source:I'm studing archaeology and made a huge exposition about medieval warfare last year
P.D.:all of the other stuff is cool and right, just correct wrong info
source:I'm studing archaeology and made a huge exposition about medieval warfare last year
P.D.:all of the other stuff is cool and right, just correct wrong info
#99
-
ubercookieboy ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] Also contrary to popular belief, two-handed swords are neither slow or clunky.
An athletic soldier with proper technique can attack and deflect with uncanny speed.
inb4 neckbeards start debating about katanas
An athletic soldier with proper technique can attack and deflect with uncanny speed.
inb4 neckbeards start debating about katanas
#127 to #99
-
stifflimb (01/05/2016) [-] They were after some use, they did weigh a lot and you'd kill your own if you spinned it around so in addition to start up the movement you'd also had to stop it, that takes it toll on the stamina.
Neither two handed swords or katanas are better or worse, they were made for different climates and different opponents, 1 is better that the other only in their own land, katana against a full knight and you'd be in a **** place almost none chance to kill him with your weapon unless you manage to sneak it through a weak spot, two handed sword against a samurai and the two handed sword is unnecesary big and slow and would likely make the guy sweat to death inside the armor if the fights takes place in the respective countries
Neither two handed swords or katanas are better or worse, they were made for different climates and different opponents, 1 is better that the other only in their own land, katana against a full knight and you'd be in a **** place almost none chance to kill him with your weapon unless you manage to sneak it through a weak spot, two handed sword against a samurai and the two handed sword is unnecesary big and slow and would likely make the guy sweat to death inside the armor if the fights takes place in the respective countries
#146
-
wellimnotsure (01/05/2016) [-] Actually about half of these are completely wrong or mostly wrong, I should have just said that.
