I don't see why. Arquebusiers couldn't fire up and expect to hit the enemy, but crossbowmen and longbowmen could. Tercios with crossbowmen would just mean needlessly endangering them. Besides, they don't need to be in a tight square formation either, because they can just fire all at the same time.
High middleages without gunpowder.
- Thread starter LXEagle
- Start date
I don't see why. Arquebusiers couldn't fire up and expect to hit the enemy, but crossbowmen and longbowmen could. Tercios with crossbowmen would just mean needlessly endangering them. Besides, they don't need to be in a tight square formation either, because they can just fire all at the same time.
That's why I favourably mentioned crossbowmen, who were first employed successfully by the Chinese against the nomad horse-archers.
So in the "no-gunpowder ATL" the only hope to withstand nomad horse armies was using mixed crossbow-spearman formations.
And there is a possibility in this ATL that the crossbow might be improved since it would be more widely used in the European armies.
From a tactical and logistic standpoint crossbows are quite similar to early firearms- e.g. easy to learn, slow to reload, difficult/impossible to use mounted, best used in ranks, etc.
So a lot of the later musket tactic developments might be repeated only with crossbows.
OTOH, certain things e.g. bayonets, are probably not likely to be "cloned" with crossbows- though that's well down the road- but in general...
for instance you'll probably see "skirmishers" e.g. light crossbow wielding infantry, and "dragoons" or mounted crossbowmen (logistic and tactical mobility) who dismount to fight. You'll probably see some form of repeating crossbow develop as IOTL there were some examples of this- and there were some "revolvers" e.g. the Pepperbox that developed for horsemen.
Well do we really know the velocity for the javelin? (Also it may or may not be thrown from horseback).
Also, it may be easier to carry but not easier to fight hand to hand combat with. Secondly...could they really pierce first a plate shield, then plate armor?
The javelin would at least penetrate the shield, and render it useless stuck in it.
Why would heavy armoured cavalry survive? The Welsh longbow would stop them as per Agincourt (at least in English military legend). It was seriously suggested in Napoleonic times that the longbow should be used rather than the musket, more efficient and faster rate of fire. No gunpowder might mean English ascendency at least for a time as the longbow was at least as good as the crossbow and easier to learn and use. Mind you apart from Henry V most of our military leaders at that time weren't that good!
African or European?(monty python reference)
Don't be getting flung off into the abyss, now. (Monty Python reference
)Longer ranged and some more powerful than a javelin, I'll make a pitch for the Atlatl (spear thrower). Although the bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in most cultures, it was in truth a device with a balance of range and power unique to itself. The primary disadvantage is it has a steeper learning curve than either bow or javelin.
Atlatls (or at least the unique Atlatl the Tarairu of the brazilian highlands used) were known to be able to pierce the armor the Portuguese were wearing in the 17th C:
(Must have been a uniquely hard wood to be able to go through metal!)
Prins, Harald E.L. (2010). The Atlatl as Combat Weapon in 17th-Century Amazonia
You should really look up about what happened at Azencour and elsewhere.
The English were basically dug in to near-WW1 levels and also protected by heavily armoured men at arms, had the battleground of their choosing, were defending a hill, and had terrible French leadership play right into their aims. They were able to repeat this success with Scotland through to the 16th c. because Scotland if anything had an even more insane and antiquated martial traditions than France.
All other times and situations the longbow troops were slaughtered, sometimes in just minutes. This happened at Patay (knights ride down insufficiently dug in longbowmen arranged for battle in a line taking almost no losses), Formigny (longbowmen successfully defend camp against French foot until lured out into the open, ridden down very quickly by Breton cavalry), at Gerberoy (French men at arms and light horse surprise longbow and infantry column on the march and break into a half-complete fortified camp before reinforcements can link up).
Longbowmen, hired by their thousands, managed to have no positive impact in Charles of Burgudny's service. They were mildly effective but nothing special in Italy and Hungary either.
Longbows are a potent weapon when tactical setups are perfect and when they are supported by men at arms of their own. It's basically pretty clear from historical record that armoured cavalry outlasted the mass longbow fad everywhere including England proper.
Don't be getting flung off into the abyss, now. (Monty Python reference
Longer ranged and some more powerful than a javelin, I'll make a pitch for the Atlatl (spear thrower). Although the bow and arrow supplanted the atlatl in most cultures, it was in truth a device with a balance of range and power unique to itself. The primary disadvantage is it has a steeper learning curve than either bow or javelin.
Atlatls (or at least the unique Atlatl the Tarairu of the brazilian highlands used) were known to be able to pierce the armor the Portuguese were wearing in the 17th C:
(Must have been a uniquely hard wood to be able to go through metal!)
Prins, Harald E.L. (2010). The Atlatl as Combat Weapon in 17th-Century Amazonia
Did Harald Prins ever try to recreate this scenario with faithful modern replicas? Because until then this reference is worthless. I cannot emphasise this point enough.
What is "17th c. Portuguese armour" - harness? munitions breastplate? mail? brigandine? padded linen/cotton? A combination of the above? Was the person actually wearing it? Was it rusted? What was the range? Where did it hit? We don't know these things.
There's 17th c. Russian accounts saying the same thing, that "against the bows of the Siberians, neither mail nor brigandine can stand, it shoots clean through both sides". This is especially odd because the Russians themselves wore a variety of armour in their European wars and some 20+ % still used bows functionally identical to those used in Siberia (and the others used firearms! So you know, beating mail with ranged weapons should have been a regular occurrence to them). Why would people wear the stuff if it was useless? They would not, as is shown by rapid decline in armour once grapeshot and flintlocks appear.
And needless to say it hasn't been reproduced at all.
This is (as silly as it sounds) a very new field. People did not do much reconstruction work when interest resurfaced in the 19th c., and historical records aren't definitive without the level of detail and context that we simply do not have.
Last edited:
Sorry if this has been addressed, but I didn't see a specific answer so here's that's not true:
Plate is a piece of steel, solid everywhere except the joints (which would likely have mail or some other protection). That means in order to penetrate the armor the projectile or other weapon had to be able to break through it. With say a mace of ax it was easier beach use there is a larger surface and the armor can be crushed under the blow. This is also the reason so many European swords of the time were heavy and dull. The weapons were designed to smash in the plate since penetrating it was just too difficult. And as has been noted it took a long time for even bullets to penetrate full plate armor (which is where the term bulletproof comes from.
Mail on the other hand is a series of metal rings carefully woven together to provide protection against slashing weapons (because to penetrate the weapon has to destroy the rings. Now an arrow or stabbing weapon will penetrate far easier because despite the intricacy of the weaving the point can find its way through the gaps in the rings. A javelin type weapon as basically a pointy stick would have more ability to penetrate the rings than generating the force to penetrate plate armor.
In addition to what was pointed out above the Frech knights had absolutely horrible discipline and were charging across horrific ground. The English victory had far more to do with terrain and the French screwup than it did with the longbow. And said suggestion in the Napoleonic war would have been long after armor was gone as a key factor on the battlefield.
[/QUOTE] No gunpowder might mean English ascendency at least for a time as the longbow was at least as good as the crossbow and easier to learn and use. Mind you apart from Henry V most of our military leaders at that time weren't that good![/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but bullshit. The crossbow is FAR easier to use and learn than a longbow. People trained with longbows for years or decades to become good enough to use a full sized one on the battlefield. The crossbow can be learned in six months and fire more accurately than a longbow.
You raise a good point. However, sometimes all we have to go on are the contemporary accounts. Obviously, in the case of the Portuguese in Brazil, they weren't wearing proofed armor.
Unless, the story is apocryphal and/or used as an excuse for some act of Portuguese incompetence in the field. I do however wonder if that "hardwood" that was used for the spears was an ultra-hard and dense wood like lignum vitae? That could cause some damage...Speaking of proofed armor, that is, armor specifically tested before use by being shot at by a firearm, it was the product of an arms race between gunpowder weapons and plate armor. Towards the end of the plate armor era, the armor grew thicker and heavier. Without the firearm impetus, how would the development of armor proceed?
There has been very little, if any, consideration of the effect of 'no gunpowder' on either naval warfare, or siege warfare.
At sea, with no cannon, naval warfare looks very different ans much more limited. Presumably (unless Greek Fire makes a comeback) sea actions are settled by boarding.This is much more limited than bombardment, and it would be much easier to avoid giving battle. The effect overall on England, in particular, would be enormous.
And, sans powder, the castle continues to reign over the countryside. That has great social implications . We may find that feudalism continues till much much later -even into modern times ?
At sea, with no cannon, naval warfare looks very different ans much more limited. Presumably (unless Greek Fire makes a comeback) sea actions are settled by boarding.This is much more limited than bombardment, and it would be much easier to avoid giving battle. The effect overall on England, in particular, would be enormous.
And, sans powder, the castle continues to reign over the countryside. That has great social implications . We may find that feudalism continues till much much later -even into modern times ?