Actually most small arms fire can be stopped by 1/8th inch of steel today. Granted it ruins the part of the armor it hits but it won't kill you and you'll probably only get a welt. And while stuff back then was akin to a cannon on your shoulder it was not near as powerful

Greatsword did infact exist, however their usage on the battlefield I cannot comment much about. However the german "Zweihander" which literally translates to two hander would be classified as a greatsword one could argue, mostly used as an anti cavalry weapon from what I know however.

One could argue that the accuracy of the archer and the doctrine and tactics that they were used in are different, I would say that an European style archer would probably be on the same level as a steppe horse archer if they had the same training in archery, tactics difference more than anything however.
As for horse archers, one could assume they'd be firing in volleys as well until they did the famous tactical retreat where they employed parthian horse archery (unsure about the name really but it's the term I've heard for using your bow on a horse while firing back at an enemy chasing you.)

Slight correction, despite being called a "Zweihander", the actual translation is "Three handed sword" Yeah i know Zwei means "two" , but the translation is literal vs. actual

Zweihanders were used by lightly armored soldiers on the front line, in the later medieval ages, pikes sometimes twice the length of spears were very popular and just as effective against calvalry as they were footsoldiers. When the two armies charged at each other, whoever had the longer pikes would hit the other one first, as a response, the other side had guys with giant swords spinning around to knock the pikes of target The longer a weapon is, the less control it has or just break the shafts on the pikes.

Somewhat ironically, these troops caused more causalities on their own side than the enemies, probably saved a lot of lives in the process though

It is important to know that a greatsword=/= Zweihander (Three handed), Doppelhander (Both handed), or Bidenhander (Double handed)

Those three would fall under the category of Schlactherschwerter literally, "Slaughter swords" and are different from the greatswords, which are defined as "long and weighty enough to demand a two handed handle", the big difference is that greatswords are not nearly as specialized as their German cousins

Many weapons were meant for duels, but the two handed swords were used by the *largely* immune full-plate users.

I think any archer was capable of hitting targets. I meant to stipulate that because horse archers were more used to close range shooting they may have more experience shooting in a target oriented manner on a battle field context.

Can't say I have anything on that one.

I can agree to horse archers probably being given more free will in picking their targets as close formations and cavalry like horse archers wouldn't go too hand in hand and the idea is to stick as far as way from the chasing enemy so you're probably right on that one.

There's a big difference between early muskets and later rifles and pistols though.

However musketfire did and would probably dent the armour enough to make the plate itself useless.

You raise a good point but the power changes but the mechanics are pretty much the same. very fast moving, dense, rounded piece of metal will still pierce the thin steel of traditional plate before the plate has a chance of redirecting the bullet. I know japan used steel plates to protect against musket fire but it had to be very thick and heavy. Full plate weighed only around 40 lbs. To make that even remotely helpful at protecting you from bullets you would probably have to double if not triple the weight for full body protection, ignoring the huge improvements in metallurgy in that time

Yeah but you have to realise it's not only the thickness that affects the protection ability of the plate but also the way its shaped, armour evolved to become lighter at the same time as it gave more protection due to how the armour itself was shaped, instead of merely absorbing blows and whatnot it also was meant to redirect them or spread out the force that hit the armour.

I refer to that in my first comment. The problem is that a projectile moving as fast as a bullet deforms the steel of the armor before it can be meaningfully redirected. In other words because of the momentum and small surface area the bullet "bites" into the armor. The same principle is seen in the design of warhammers and maces

My counter argument would be the size of a musketball, I know it's not exactly huge but it's still a rounded ball made of metal.

But I guess it also boils down to where on the armour you hit them as well, however I do believe plate armour would have SOME impact on stopping a bullet fired from earlier guns but due to the practice of guns being fired en masse it was proven ineffective.

But alas, I can't say I'm educated enough about the subject to add anything more, however if you find anything else on the subject I'd like to know.

maybe there is a case for the very first experimental firearms to have had trouble with plate, but velocity is a cold hard bitch

Good convo, brought up good points, made me do some extra research.
You are my favorite type of human.

Yeah was thinking more arquebuses and earlier muskets for it to be the case as that's when knightly armour was in its prime.

Yeah, no need to pretend to know something I don't.

might find this interesting.

books.google.com/books?id=mhoe1nIT9qoC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=medieval+muzzle+velocity&source=bl&ots=A5knENowFR&sig=IE-ukvGJLHuCOiW8TJdC9JX-iAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbic2cpZLKAhXHSyYKHevIDtoQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=medieval%20muzzle%20velocity&f=false

That are some pretty damn large calibres.

Also damn it stopped right before I got the result for the wheel-lock pistol fired at the barding.

which ones are the dubious clams?

Also that was only a 30lb bow, most english longbows were between 90-110lb draw weight...

not to mention if only 5 percent of your army was dead then their would be no reason to rout, i doubt any army of a hundred dudes would run away after seeing 5 guys die, thats not even mentioning any other form of combat like cavalry charges or arrows.

He arguably is, it's his career - it's just he makes a lot of assumptions about warfare tactics and strategy.

ye
routes are my favorite thing to abuse.