Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.


Scam free! Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

If you're a history buff, love to talk about history and watch the History Channel, this is the board for that.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby momopi » Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:33 pm

1. Africa has been colonized by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc. since antiquity. It's far more developed agriculturally and can support larger population. By 1800 there were some 90-100+ million people in Africa, versus Native American population in North America had declined to 600,000. Read history of North Africa versus North America.

2. There were 7 competing European colonial powers in Africa that divvied up the spoils. For South Africa to expand northwards they would have to go to war against Germany, Portugal, Belgium, France, etc.

3. European immigration to South America is uneven due to different colonial administration’s policies. Argentina had a policy to attract European settlers and has 97% “white” population. Peru attracted fewer immigrants and only 15% of the population is “white” vs 37% “mixed” and 45% “Native”. To get a better understanding you need to research each colonial administration’s history and policies.

4. They gained self-rule and independence incrementally. The British Parliament had various legislative powers over Canada until 1982, and Australia/New Zealand until 1986. South Africa was given the boot (or door slam) by the Commonwealth in 1960-1961 (read history of apartheid in SA).

5. During WW2 England desperately needed men and material from India, so to appease Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League they offered to grant India Dominion Status with option to secede. India provided 2.5 million volunteers to fight for the British and, after the war the British were unable to retract the offer.

6. When technology progressed from smoothbore musket to rifled barrels & breech-loading, the improved accuracy and reload speed made fancy uniforms painted targets.

7. Early cannons were used during the hundred year war, but these were considered primitive with inferior range.

8. Read history of Samuel de Champlain founding Quebec colony in 1608? Hendrick Corstiaense establishing the first Dutch Colony in New York in 1614?

9. The witch trials was a local legal issue and not an armed rebellion. The cases were handled in court and, ultimately settled by the Governor with financial compensation.

10. See Act of Uniformity 1558, which required all persons to attend Church of England (or aligned Church) once a week or be fined 12 pence. If your religious order was not aligned and did not use the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, then you’re a nonconformist.

11. English longbow archers take many years of training from age 7. You cannot simply recruit and train longbow archers in few months. Musketmen training in formation and loading can be done in few months.

12. If you send assassins to your opponent, you can expect the same in return. On the battlefield however, sharpshooters (marksman who can hit 7” target at 250 yards back then) are employed to take out “high value targets”.
momopi
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4716
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Orange County, California







Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby Moretorque » Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:06 am

Thanks your a real gem.
Time to Hide!
Moretorque
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:00 pm
Location: USA,FL

Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby Cornfed » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:11 am

momopi wrote: 7. Early cannons were used during the hundred year war, but these were considered primitive with inferior range.

Huge siege artillery pieces played a part in the war from early on. Field artillery was, I think, first introduced by the English at Crecy, but didn’t come into its own until later in the war. This is one of the reasons given why the French won. The longbow was best used as artillery and it was eventually neutralized and surpassed by actual artillery, which the French seemed to have an advantage in.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 am

Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby Cornfed » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:46 am

momopi wrote:6. When technology progressed from smoothbore musket to rifled barrels & breech-loading, the improved accuracy and reload speed made fancy uniforms painted targets.

The British noticed this earlier. Their scarlet uniforms with white bandoleers making a perfect aiming point for the heart made it so. It was noticed that British soldiers fighting in northern India got shot much less when their clothes were encrusted in dust and filth than when they were clean. Hence there was a dust-colored yellow-brown uniform issued, which was later modified to a light green for woodland areas, both of which were called “khaki”- Urdu for “dust”.
User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:22 am

Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby Taco » Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:37 pm

History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true - Leo Tolstoy
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero – Voltaire

We know that the next economic crash (every 7 years) is coming soon, because these crashes are deliberately timed to coincide with the U.S. presidential cycle. – Jeff Nielson
Taco
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:30 pm

Re: Momopi, puzzling questions about general history

Postby Winston » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:57 pm

I posted the same question about why the English didn't use archers against the Colonial armies, on YouTube in a video about the Battle of Agincourt - which took place during the Hundred Years War between England and France - and I got a lot of interesting responses. Check them out below. The guys definitely went a lot deeper into this than Momopi did. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxHYQW2Nio

HappierAbroad8 months ago
Why didn't the English use these longbow archers during the American Revolution War too? Then they could have wiped out George Washington's army with all those arrows too. That would have been rad!

Replies:

Braden Vande Plasse7 months ago
Because people thought the boom noise meant good weapon. And it would be hard to train them. Of course even a lower draw weight bow would work.
Reply 2
7dayspking
7dayspking7 months ago
+happierAbroad it's much easier to outfit 10,000 or 50,000 men with firearms...than it is to train 5,000 archers.
Reply 1
The Cappening Channel
The Cappening Channel4 months ago
Being a trained archer takes a "lifetime". They were trained from childhood and had impressive physique. When they switched to blackpowder gun guards at Westminster, it was not because it was better, but because bowmen were hard to find, and very expencive.
Reply 1
Zamolxes77
Zamolxes773 months ago
Do you realize how long it takes for someone to be able to shoot a 110 lbs warbow efficiently? Is not the bow itself, is the muscles of the archers. Anyone can learn to shoot a bow in 15 minutes with proper instruction, but to develop the muscles of the back and the form required to shoot efficiently, that takes years after years of diligent practice.

A musket require 15 minutes of explaining how to operate it and then the recruit can fire it time and again, without the need of developing his muscles. Only needs to learn how to aim properly and coordonate their fire with other soldiers, so they fire in a volley. That takes considerable less time, a month or two, not decades.

BUT. Since you like bows so much, you might want to learn that last time a bow was shot in battle, was in Normandy, in ww2, where this crazy scottish officer shot Nazis with his warbow. Look it up, there is even a picture of him charging the beaches of Normandy with a broadsword in hand !
Show less
Reply 2
Paaain
Paaain2 months ago
If I can remember correctly in the 16th century there was a saying that Arrows and Bolts scare the Horse, but gunns scare the Rider.
A wound from a musket is much more likely to kill and incapacitate than that from an arrow. And the tradition of archery went down, when a firearm was the only thing capable punching through armor. Plate armor of the 17th century was mor developed, than in the late 15th and 15th century and high quality brestplates would even be bulletprove to up to certain ranges.
Then of course its easier to outfit large groups of soldiers with muskets and teach them volley firing.
But at the same time all cultures that came into contact with european muskets tried to get them as well. So they where effective.
King Phillips War in 1675 was a war where the majority of the american native warriors used firearms. And those guys did actually train in hunting, archery and marskmanship und did not use the line infantry tactic. Still they thought that firearms had enough of an advantage to use them, wherever they could, even if they never where able to produce their own powder.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking2 months ago
+Paaain You're right about Musket wounds, however muskets simply had inferior penetration...MUCH softer and heavier ammunition...the exact opposite of what you want. You want ammunition that is hard, small and very fast.

In the late 17th and 18th Century we see a significant improvement in firearms from their Renaissance counterparts.

The Americans did not use powerful warbows designed for anti-armour....or hard iron/mild steel anti-armour heads on a heavy war arrow.
Show less
Reply
Paaain
Paaain2 months ago
7dayspking well if you look at early firearms you see that they try to compensate with big and heavy projectiles to get the kinetic energy.
and yes thats worse than a small, hard projectile with high velocity. However it will not glance of a eell shaped chestpiecr as easy as an arrow but make a good dent. And it made armour in the late 16th and early 17th century to heavy to still be effetive.
or was at least one of the many reasons and changes in the nature of warfare that led to the drcline of armor
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking2 months ago (edited)
+Paaain ...you missed my point, the harder and smaller arrows has a much better chance at penetrating. Of course the more powerful musket will leave the better dent...as would a good kick with hard capped boots.

Armour didn't decline in the 16/17th Century, there was just a bigger focus on helmet and breastplate....it actually declined in the 18-early 20th Century as it was not able to reliably protect from newer firearms. However in the late 20th Century it saw a revival...with modern level 3 and even 4 plates being roughly 3-5 times thicker than 15th Century plates and at least 2.5-3 x thicker than late 16th (usually at least 6mm.)
Show less
Reply
Paaain
Paaain2 months ago
By decline I meant the full plate harness.
Should have been mor precise.
And as far as i understand ballistics a high velocity arrow is easier to glance of or drift of its course than a heavier projectile, with lower speed, that because of it's momentum will still punch quite hard, even if it doesn't penetrate.
If you look at the shape of a late medieval/early modern breast plate it is clearly designed to facilitate glancing, a feature that most cheap replicas that are used for tests lack.
Btw - that might be why english longbowmen used quite heavy arrows if you compare them to for example the turkish arrows that where designed for longer range shooting.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking2 months ago
+Paaain Earlier firearms were not high velocity....they were if they had a muzzle velocity twice that of a bow and still had soft lead rounds. Most cheap replicas also lack any reasonable hardness or spring, the steel is complete shit...a breastplate with glancing angles but without hardness is outright useless. Musket balls however don't tend to glance....as seen by the 'proof marks'

The Turkish actually had heavier war arrows as well.
Show less
Reply
James Harper
James Harper2 months ago
Hitting a 3 rank deep line with a longbow is pretty hard.
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell6 days ago
Ridiculous: A musket ball would fly through full plate armor and the gambeson beneath with ease from long range- muskets are the reason why Plate armor was phased out.
Even the heaviest bows by draw weight with bodkin arrows are not able to reliably penetrate plate armor not to mention the mail and gambeson beneath.
Show less
Reply
Paaain
Paaain6 days ago
Depends on the musket and the quality of the plate.
On many Chestpieces of the late 16th century you can see the dents when they where tested. For the city or the lord to pay for the order they had to hold up against shots from a certain range. However as far I know heavy muskets (the ones you had to rest on a stick for shooting them) where mostly capaple of penetrating, while smaller firearms wheren't. Later on it yould have simply been to heavy to make the plates thick enough.
In the 16th century they had even some bulletproof shields.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell5 days ago
From a pistol yes but I'm talking about full length Muskets(not the ones you have to put on a stick either) they would shoot through almost every chest piece there is except for the thickest Munition grade armor which was extremely expensive and much heavier than standard plate armor. in the 16th century armors were only "proofed" by a pistol.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking5 days ago
Musket ball shot out of what, at what velocity, at what distance and hitting what plate armour? Plate armour was bullet resistant and a popular form of firearms defence until the late 17th Century, where as firearms first saw prominence in the mid 15th Century. It is true that late 17th Century firearms could consistently penetrate even a good Breastplate under 100 yards but there's far more nuance to the issue than you've suggested.

Munitions grade armour is the worst quality, if it can barely penetrate munitions grade armour it CAN'T penetrate decent quality armour. In the 16th Century armours were 'proofed' by Arquebus and early Musket.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking5 days ago
+Paaain Actually the 'heavy muskets' you refer to are Arquebuses, these were actually not powerful enough to generally penetrate anything but lower quality plate armour unless at very close range. Later muskets did not require mounting and had greater muzzle velocities.
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell5 days ago
Lol@"2x the velocity of a longbow- even the arquebus can manage velocities of 1500 fps which is more than 5 times the velocity of a longbow. Also it being made out of lead makes it weak? What do you think modern day bullets are made of einstein? Munitions plate wasn't high carbon steel but it was the thickest plate armor there was- the only armor that could actually defeat a flintlock or matchlock shot. What you're reffering to is armor that was proofed against flintlock pistols which could do very little in comparison to actual muskets or even arquebuses.
Read more
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking5 days ago
+Hell Hell My comment was based on a misunderstanding of arrow velocities I believe but you are still wrong. While I'm certain Matchlock Musket's did not have muzzle velocities of 450 m/s (more so 300-350.) my assumption was arrows from a Longbow fire at 150 m/s which is indeed at least 1/3rd of the velocity you proposed anyway. While I'm now not sure of the velocity of arrow from 180 lb Longbow I think the figure I had in mind was for flight arrows and not heavy war arrows.

prove munitions plate was the 'thickest there was'...are you suggesting higher quality plate armour could not be made to the same thickness..or was not thinner FOR A REASON? Your claim was munitions plate was the most expensive.

Flintlock's appear in the 17th century and Flintlock pistols the very late 17th Century...your claim and my claim was about 15 and 16th Century firearms and armour, why would either of us be talking about Flintlock pistols? I'd love for you to prove only lower quality armour was proof against firearm hahahah.
Show less
Reply
Paaain
Paaain5 days ago
There seems to be a misunderstanding due to translation.
In German "Hakenbüchse" refers to the old handgonnes, that had a hook at the end to brace them on a wall, "Arquebuse" then refers to late 16th/early 17th guns that had a smaller caliber and where fired unsuported from the shoulder and "Musket" in this german typology refers to bigger caliber guns, that where fired supported from a fork and had a higher muzzlevelocity.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking4 days ago
+Paaain Issue is imprecise definitions, in this case I'm using Arquebus to refer to the substantially inferior late 15th Century-mid 17th Century firearms (in that period were used mostly while mounted on a fork.) and the Musket as the substantially more powerful and superior post mid 17th Century weapons.
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell3 days ago
Big misunderstanding of arrow and musket velocities, show me one longbow that can achieve a 150 m/s velocity I dare you.
Your original claim was that war arrows are better at penetrating plate armor than musket balls are.
Modern tests have shown that to be untrue, historical accounts from the 15th and 16th century say that plate armor made the user practically invulnerable to arrow fire unless hit in the mask or joints whereas musket fire destroyed 99% of armor at less than 100m. The reason why Munitions armor used iron was because it is more malleable than high carbon steel which cracks when hit by a 2000J musket ball.
If carbon steel was properly heat treated though in the 17th century it could be "proofed" against musket fire if the thickness were in excess of 3mm however Lindybeige's tests and many others have shown that arrows from 120+pound bows with properly weighted arrows are incapable of piercing steel or Iron breastplate in excess of 2mm.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell3 days ago
Further to my last comment read thesepage from The Knight and The Blast Furnace
https://books.google.ca/books?id=GpVbns ... or&f=false

2mm thick milanese plate armor is protected completely from longbow fire, only being vulnerable to the most powerful steel cross bows which have almost 3x the kinetic energy of a longbow arrow.
Meanwhile the same plate of armor is threatened by a hussite handgun while offering 0 protection for arqubus or Musket fire whatsoever.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking3 days ago
+Hell Hell Can you refer me to this modern testing with historically accurate and high quality armour. Back to your earlier claim, you responded to my claim by suggesting (in this context a 15th Century matchlock.) would have a muzzle velocity of more than 460 m/s...or faster than the speed of sound, would you like to prove that?

My claim whether accurate or not was only about earlier firearms and not late 16th and 17th Century firearms.

"musket fire destroyed 99% of armor at less than 100m" - a claim I'd like you to demonstrate.

Sorry can you demonstrate soft iron is superior protection than hardened steel? I think you'll find modern steel body armour is made of hardened steel and not iron and is used to stop firearms substantially more powerful than historically..perhaps you think we're stupid today.

Lindybiege never held a test, you're referring to his video in which he documented a test. The breastplate was stated to be 1.8 mm at it's thickest, not 2 mm. It also stopped an 140-150 lb bow (which contradicts outright the figures provided in the little excerpt you provided.)
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell2 days ago
Lindebeige's test is the accurate modern testing.
Velocity same book Knight and the blast furnace at page 923- German wheelock musket 12.3mm bore 480mm barrel muzzle velocity 438 m/s.
Modern armor use mainly ceramic plates...
Modern ballistic steel is heat treated very differently than 15th century steel.
How does the test lindybeige documented contradict the figures in the Knight and the blast furnace????????
Read more
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking2 days ago
+Hell Hell Wheellock's are mid 16th Century, also exactly which musket is this? "Modern armor use mainly ceramic plates" which has no relevance to the conversation unless your argument is that steel plates are not used at all.

" is heat treated very differently " - I'm sure it is.
The 1.8mm plate easily deflected the arrow of an 140 lb longbow without so much as a noticeable dent, what's claimed in the excerpt is 2+ mm plate is just 120 lb bow proof.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell2 days ago
read table 1 at the top of the page, the kinetic energy of a longbow shot peaks at 80 Joules, the 2mm plate in the excerpt is proofed to about 230J which is only possible with the most powerful steel crossbows.
Some modern bows however can achieve a kinetic energy higher than 100 joules but that still would not be enough to penetrate any of the armors discussed in the excerpt.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking1 day ago
+Hell Hell How powerful is the bow? Perhaps you're right and I got confused. Anyway can you demonstrate 15th Century Arquebus has a muzzle velocity of 450 m/s?
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell1 day ago
on the arquebus front:"Syrian matchlock arquebus, 15.1mm bore barrel with a 760 mm barrel length - average muzzle velocity of 449 m/sec"

but that wasn't from the 15th century, i can't find anything on velocity from that period.
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking1 day ago
+Hell Hell "Average muzzle velocity" I don't really trust that figure, is there some specific recorded examples of that particular firearm? Not to mention the musket in question is one from the 18th Century...and others discussed in the book are mostly from the late 17th Century.

I hardly see how this is representative of 15th Century firearms.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell1 day ago
https://books.google.ca/books?id=PV61Cw ... ty&f=false
read page 69 569m/s with a 15 inch barrel using dry mixed powder but often misfired.
Wet mixed powder was 469 m/s with the same barrel length but was much more consistent.
Penetration: the 15 inch barrel penetrated the 2.5mm sheet 5 out of 8 times from a distance of 9 meters while the 10 inch barrel penetrated 6 times out of 14.
There was a shorter barrel length of 5 inches that was tested and yielded less impressive results but the author mentions that 10-15 inch barrel lengths were more common for handgonnes during the 15th century.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell1 day ago
Those results are late 15th century though, a 10 inch hangonne was likely more common early in the 15th century with an average muzzle velocity of 150 m/s but like i mentioned it was still powerful enough to penetrate a 2.5mm mild steel plate almost 50% of the time.
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking23 hours ago
+Hell Hell Wait the 469 m/s firearm was unable to penetrate the sheet 8 times out of 8 from a distance of 5 metres? A 2.5 mm soft mild steel sheet is not a plate.
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell23 hours ago
???? i don't know what you're talking about the long barrel using wet mixed powder with an average velocity of 469 m/s penetrated the sheet FIVE out of eight times at 9m away.
Most 15th century armor was thinner than 2.5mm but the shape of a well made breastplate does well to deflect projectiles as compared to a flat sheet.
Nonetheless I have looked and found 0 evidence that a longbow arrow can penetrate 2+mm of mild steel, the book itself states that longbows are not capable of doing the same.
Show less
Reply
7dayspking
7dayspking15 hours ago
+Hell Hell Yes and 5 out of 8 times from 10 metres away is pretty piss poor, especially against a sheet of mild steel. Yes most 15th Century armour was thinner than 2.5 mm, it also wasn't a sheet and was often hardened.

Your latter statement is correct, I happily concede my original point (I would have conceded it two months ago hahaha.) it's obvious firearms have superior penetration. I'd still like a good figure on the muzzle velocity of 15th Century firearms though.

The point I'm mainly arguing here is I think especially a 16th Century Breastplate could be pretty damned Musket resistant, especially with 2mm or more becoming the norm in this period (and of hardened steel shaped into a breastplate, it's sure to faire much better than a soft steel sheet.)

For the record there's video on youtube of people casually poking through sheets of steel with swords, polearms and the like. Some might very well be over that 2 mm mark just to show how unreliable such tests really are.
Show less
Reply
Hell Hell
Hell Hell4 hours agoHighlighted reply
handgonnes didn't have great penetration compared to 16th century muskets and arquebuses but they were good enough for killing the average armored soldier of the 15th century as most weren't wearing anything better than mild steel. Also, some sources say that a hardened steel will crack because of its increased brittleness but I haven't seen actual tests on 15th century firearms specifically against high carbon steel armor.
Show less
Reply
HappierAbroad
HappierAbroad3 hours ago
Well Washington and his Continental Army were traitors. They deserved to be killed with English arrows. Friggin rebel traitors. Why are they portrayed as heroes today? Also, the Confederates during the Civil War fought for their "independence" too. So why are they considered in the wrong today? Isn't that a double standard? American history is full of such double standards.
Show less
Reply
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24169
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Previous

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest