Military Review

From a spear to a pistol. The evolution of horse soldiers from 1550 to 1600 year

154
The transition from the rule of knights in forged armor, sitting astride powerful and in the same way “armored” horses, to relatively light cavalry, armed with pistols and swords, occurred in less than a century. Recall the Hundred Years War. It began in the era of "combined chain-plate armor", and ended in the era of "white metal armor", but it took a whole century. Why? Because the main strike force at that time was a spear and a sword, but the bow and crossbow, with all their destructive power, was auxiliary weapons. Moreover, in Europe, even riding archers could not shoot from a horse, because it was believed that they could not engage in such a noble cause, sitting on a noble animal! Tooth-doers, on the contrary, in order to snatch a tooth out, knight mounted a horse in order to at least approach this “their nobility” in such a manner!



Pikemen in the Battle of Rocroix in 1643. Painting by Sebastian Renks.

The decree of the French king Charles VII created the cavalry from the "fully armored nobles" and the noble servants, devoid of shields, since they were no longer needed - the armor reached its perfection. In the battle of Fornovo in 1495, it was these horsemen who scattered the Italians as pins, and in Ravenna in 1512, the French knights broke through the ranks of the German landsknechts, proving that they were almost invulnerable.

But this army demanded an incredibly large amount of money and only the French crown was able to contain it. There were attempts by the Duke of Burgundy from the Habsburg dynasty to copy these French companies of gendarmes, but in fact they were not crowned with success. Yes, the riders were there, but they were few in number. When Henry VIII of England invaded France in 1513, he with great difficulty armed the necessary number of men, and even then they had to wear only half armor or “three-quarter armor” and ride unarmored horses.

This paradigm changed in the middle of 1540-ies with the advent of a new invention in Germany: a pistol with a wheel lock. And very soon the riders begin to use such pistols, since it was for them that they were very comfortable. So during the siege of Szekesfehervar in Hungary in 1543, these pistols were already used in battle. The following year, at the disposal of the German Emperor Charles V, a whole division of riders with pistols appeared. Interestingly, Henry VIII in the same year complained that the German cavalry he had hired was not really heavy cavalry, but only cavalry pistols. So not so he was a seer, although he loved various military marvels.

From a spear to a pistol. The evolution of horse soldiers from 1550 to 1600 year

Helmet burgonet. France, 1630. Weight 2190, Metropolitan Museum, New York.

Already in 1550, the German heavy cavalry almost completely abandoned the spear in favor of a pair or more wheel guns. Moreover, they continued to be considered heavy cavalry, as they wore full armor and "three-fourths armor", but already used pistols as the main offensive weapon. Armored horses were immediately a thing of the past, and thus, in 1560, the German horse for heavy cavalry was already much lighter than it was only thirty years ago. What is the benefit? Yes, very simple - less had to spend on fodder, and the effectiveness of such cavalry in battle did not suffer, but, on the contrary, increased!

Another reason was the appearance at the end of the 1540-s muskets weighing from 20 pounds or more and caliber to 20-mm. The lead bullet of such a musket could penetrate any armor, therefore the sense in it became less and less. As a result, the French and Italians began to hire Albanian stradiot; the Germans are Hungarians; the Spaniards used their own light horsemen — ginet, armed with a shield and spear (but also a pistol!); well, and in England a whole system was created, in accordance with which riders armed themselves in proportion to their income!


Musket. Germany, XVI - XVII centuries. Caliber 17,5-mm. Weight 5244,7 Metropolitan Museum, New York.


The lock to this musket.

All this cavalry was cheap, mobile, prone to looting and not too reliable, but ... they put up with it. Why? Yes, because in the event, any such rider could send a dear and “correct” nobleman in expensive armor and on an expensive horse to the next world with a shot at an emphasis!


German engraving of the early 17th century explaining the principles of the use of firearms by reiters in battle.

From the beginning of the French religious wars in 1562, France also began the transition from the domination of the old heavy cavalry to the light one. Initially, the so-called ordonance companies in the state consisted of 600 riders in the 100 "copies", in turn, divided into dozens of 10. In practice, a company could have from 30-ti to 110-ti "copies" in its composition, that is, the actual number was not always equal to the regular number. The “spear” consisted of six people: a gendarme (“armed man”) in heavy armor who was not necessarily a knight, a squire called the veil, then three gunners (they could be archers and crossbowmen) and a page for services. According to other shooters there were two people, and the sixth in the “spear” was the servant. Also in the company was his headquarters, in which the chief was the captain, lieutenant (was the deputy captain), and besides them there were two more standard-bearers and quartermaster. Ordinance companies in the army of Charles the Bold differed only in that they also included infantry.

But here in Germany began the so-called Schmalkalden war between Catholics and Protestants, and in the course of it new riders appeared who used both new weapons and new tactics - “black riders”, raiders or pistols. They differed from modern cuirassiers by the fact that the main thing for them was the firearm, and not the traditional melee weapon. Having with them several heavy large-caliber pistols, often almost one meter in length, they used them in the first place and relied on them. And the sword acted as a reserve weapon "just in case."

The cuirassiers usually gave a volley of pistols at the infantry and cut into its ranks, while the reitars methodically shot the infantry until it escaped from the battlefield. The Reiters also never dismounted, but shot directly from their horse, that is, in fact, became the European equivalent of Oriental horse archers!


“Three Quarter Lats” for the Barberini family. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

The debate about what is best, a spear or a pistol, has continued for some time, but the practice has clearly made its choice in favor of the second. Now the metal helmet helmet and breastplate became the traditional weapon of the majority of riders, but further various riders were armed according to circumstances. Cuirassiers, more than others, continued to resemble knights in that they had closed helmets and knee-length legguards, and below were tall boots made of durable leather. The dragoons were armed with carbines, had a minimum of armor, but then a carbine, from which it was possible to shoot, both dismounted and from the saddle. Catch up with them after they fired a volley, the same, say, raters could not!


French helmet Morion 1575 g. Weight 1773 g. Typically, such helmets were worn by infantrymen, but horsemen, too, did not disdain them. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

Cuirassiers usually had two pistols. Light spearmen are two-one, but Reiters - three, five, six, which allowed them to conduct a long fire battle with the enemy. Two were worn in holsters by the saddle, two behind the boots of their boots and one or two behind the belt!

Since their opponents also wore armor, so that even the infantry had helmets and cuirass, the Reiters tried to shoot their weapons at close range. In order to get close to the enemy, they usually used lynx, but under favorable conditions they could also gallop, which, however, depended on the terrain, so that a quick jump would not hurt to keep the line. Since the pistols were being reloaded very slowly, the main tactical method in the infantry was also a karakol formation — among the Reiters — a construction in which the first row of soldiers fired immediately turned around and left, taking the place of the last row, while the second row, which became the first gave the next volley. Usually reiters were built in Karakol around 20 riders on the front and depth in 10 - 15 ranks. The first line of riders immediately after the volley was divided into two groups: one jumped to the left and the other to the right, and they both met in the rear, where they reloaded their pistols and again prepared for the attack.

Although this tactic seems simple, in fact it demanded excellent training, so that the ranks of riders in battle did not mix, and did not turn into an uncontrollable crowd. In addition, it was required to shoot volleys, which also needed to be able and was achieved not immediately. In addition, a certain psychological attitude was required to fight in this way.


Pistol shooting techniques in battle. "Iron-sided" of the army of parliament against the "beau" of the army of Charles I.

It was not without reason that contemporaries wrote that “Large pistols made the battle at close range so dangerous that everyone wants it to end as soon as possible, and one would no longer risk it.” That is, it is obvious that at a certain percentage of losses, the infantrymen and riders attacked by pistols did not risk defending themselves to the end, and everyone threw and retreated to save their lives! But the pistoliers themselves were not too eager to die under a hail of bullets, and if they suffered heavy losses from the very beginning, they almost immediately retreated.

The Spaniards held their spears the longest in Europe, but they had to be very bad when they began to fight in Holland against hired cavalry from the British, Germans and Scots (well, the Dutch themselves, of course!) Armed with cavalry pistols. And only Philip III ordered to cancel spears in the early years of the XVII century.


Double-barreled pistol Charles V (1519 - 1556) Germany, Munich. Length 49 cm. Caliber 11,7 mm. Weight 2550 Metropolitan Museum, New York.

It can be said that right up to the middle of the XVII century it was precisely the pistol guns that were in Europe a kind of “doomsday weapon”, and their numbers and skillful use guaranteed victory. This was the reason why the reiter cavalry after the Time of Troubles was instituted in Russia. Without it, to achieve victory in the battles of that time was just very hard!


Milanese armor 1600 g. Weight19,25 kg. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

However, over time, the pistols were abandoned. Why? Yes, simply because they also wore heavy armor, and this was too expensive for their invincibility. Well, of course, horses. To breed horses for such cavalry and to feed them was not easy and expensive, especially in peacetime.


German rifle caliber 14,2 mm 1680 - 1690 Metropolitan Museum, New York.

And when the Thirty Years War in Europe ended, and the Peace of Westphalia came, the armies began to resolutely "disarm", dropping their armor and abandoning heavy horses. Under these conditions, the cuirassier cavalry turned out to be “more versatile,” because it survived, but the slightly more specialized, but incomparably more expensive pistols disappeared into oblivion.


Winged Hussar Armor. Museum of the Polish Army. Warsaw.

The longest in the version of the "winged hussars" they lasted in Poland, which at that time continued to fight the Turks. The Poles needed a “weapon” to break through the ranks of the Janissaries, and she got it and used it, but in the end, too, refused these spectacular, effective, but too expensive riders!
Author:
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Good cat
    Good cat 12 January 2016 06: 47 New
    10
    A good article, I was surprised when I saw that the author is a woman.
    1. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 12 January 2016 07: 39 New
      +5
      = Kind cat "Good article, I was surprised when I saw that the author is a woman."
      Et ... normal))) And what to do?))) Guys then more and more in alternative alternatives are dying))) (I mean the story).)))))
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 January 2016 07: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: Good cat
      Moreover, in Europe even riding archers could not shoot from a horse, since it was believed that they could not do such a base game, sitting on a noble animal!

      recourse I barely restrained when I read that the author was a woman.
      They simply did not know how and could not do it because the primitive non-composite English bow was too large, and strong crossbows were too heavy and fired too rarely.
      1. kalibr
        12 January 2016 10: 09 New
        +2
        And what prevented them from buying bows from the same Turks, from the Byzantines, Arabs?
        1. Aitvaras
          Aitvaras 12 January 2016 11: 14 New
          +1
          It was interesting to attend the Battle of Kulikovo battle. The Tartar cavalry was then armed with bows and massively fired at Russian arrows, but as subsequent events showed, the bows were not so effective.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 48 New
            +2
            I suggest that you also familiarize yourself with the curious video about the Battle of Kulikovo, posted on the Goblin website and duplicated on YouTube. In it, a real scientist-historian, who has been studying the military affairs of different eras for many years, Klim Zhukov talks in detail and in detail about this battle and the latest achievements in the study of it.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 January 2016 12: 14 New
              0
              In short, the Tatars were simply there for once (literally) during their retreat, they were allowed to get drawn in, were semicircled, and so were caught in a contact battle.
              And so they almost constantly before this and another hundred years after that just without converging shot all of the bows. Then at the end they finished off the wounded and took back their arrows.
              1. AK64
                AK64 12 January 2016 22: 20 New
                +1
                The thing is apparently (IMHO) that on the Kulikovo field there were not Mongols but ... all the same Kipchaks. This is IMHO
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 12 January 2016 22: 50 New
                  +2
                  The point is apparently that for the problem under consideration it is completely monopensual whether the warriors of Mamai were ethnic Kypchaks or Mongols.
                  From this, the tactics and combat coordination of his troops did not in any way acquire special excellent properties in comparison with the army of Genghis Khan.
                  Once again, I highly recommend watching this video about the Battle of Kulikovo. A lot of interesting and informative.

                  https://youtu.be/kzprgr6EBH8
                  1. AK64
                    AK64 13 January 2016 02: 20 New
                    -2
                    The point is apparently that for the problem under consideration it is completely monopensual whether the warriors of Mamai were ethnic Kypchaks or Mongols.

                    Uh-huh ... Especially when you consider with what a crash the Mongols usually "offended" the Kypchaks.
                    From this, the tactics and combat coordination of his troops did not in any way acquire special excellent properties in comparison with the army of Genghis Khan.

                    As you can see, exactly the opposite: acquired.
                    Once again, I highly recommend watching this video about the Battle of Kulikovo. A lot of interesting and informative.

                    Study the story by video? Next time...
              2. AK64
                AK64 12 January 2016 22: 20 New
                0
                The thing is apparently (IMHO) that on the Kulikovo field there were not Mongols but ... all the same Kipchaks. This is IMHO
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 12 January 2016 11: 53 New
            +2
            ... and a year later Tokhtamysh burned Moscow.
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 56 New
              +1
              So what? Could you convey your point in a bit more detail?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 12 January 2016 12: 18 New
                +1
                And a little more expanded - standing on the eel was a hundred years later than the Kulikov field, and the last time the Tatars together with the Turks burned Moscow 190 years later even after Kazan, and until then they had done it regularly.
                And then in 1806 and 1812 they gave the Europeans in Pedermoth leggings a sniff of the real war and the steppe arrows, rather than pistol duels.
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 21 New
                  0
                  AND? How does this change the circumstances and results of the actual "friendly match" on the Kulikovo field?
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 12 January 2016 13: 32 New
                    0
                    It was an exception to the rule until archers with partially rifled weapons appeared.
                    Prior to this, the ON in the confrontation with the Steppe carried more than Moscow.
                2. AK64
                  AK64 13 January 2016 02: 22 New
                  -2
                  Tell us about the "regular" burning of Moscow by the Tatars, eh? Only ONE case is known, and even then when the Russian army was not nearby. But after the Kulikovo field with the Russian army, the Tatars did not strive to enter the battle at all: Kulikovo was the last time. Later, they only avoided the fight.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 13 January 2016 07: 03 New
                    +1
                    google yourself ... and then about the last razik write nonsense one.
                  2. Pomeranian
                    Pomeranian 13 January 2016 08: 59 New
                    +1
                    Quote: AK64
                    Only ONE case is known, and even then, when the Russian troops were not nearby.

                    So, with whom do we delete: Batu, Tokhtamysh or Devlet-girey ??
                    1. AK64
                      AK64 13 January 2016 09: 13 New
                      0
                      Do you read the discourse? Apparently not.
                      My opponent claims that the Tatars regularly burned Moscow AFTER Tokhtamysh. You see after.

                      I know it once. You, as I understand it, are also one. And he, too, is not aware of anything, otherwise he would not write "leave me alone, go look for yourself"
                      1. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 13 January 2016 09: 34 New
                        +2
                        Quote: AK64
                        You see, after.

                        Understand. I read carefully why I was surprised and wrote you a note.
                        With the exception of the capture of the Kremlin, they burned Moscow:
                        1. 1408 year, the author of the pyrotechnic show Prince Edigey.
                        2, Khan Ulu-Muhammad. He brought the people to the point that Muscovites massively "came in large numbers" from the stench of burnt meat to neighboring regions
                        3. 1451 year, Khan Mazovsha. Again burned everything except the Kremlin.
                        4. 1521, the robber brothers Muhammad Giray and Sahib Giray again burned everything except the Kremlin (stone, did not burn)
                        5. Devlet-Girey, about which it was already mentioned above, bloody 1571 year.

                        So they burned Moscow after Tokhtamysh, burned.
                      2. AK64
                        AK64 13 January 2016 11: 55 New
                        0
                        Well, you convinced me - burned regularly. Regularly? Or is it still not very regular? Or not at all regularly?

                        After all, Moscow itself, without any Tatars, burned down regularly. I'm too lazy to look for everything, but for example, only for the 14th century it’s easy to find least eight complete burns (I didn’t really rummage, I’ll say frankly, so there could be more). One thing is connected with the Tatars - Tokhtamysh.
                      3. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 13 January 2016 12: 08 New
                        +1
                        Quote: AK64
                        . One thing is connected with the Tatars - Tokhtamysh.

                        Excuse me, but are the above citizens according to your Ethiopians?
                        Quote: AK64
                        Well, you convinced me - they burned me regularly. Regularly? Or is it still not very regular? Or not at all regularly?

                        After Tokhtamysh - burned in the 15 century once a generation. What made you so mad?
                      4. AK64
                        AK64 13 January 2016 13: 02 New
                        0
                        What made you so mad?

                        Me? Nothing.
                        In the 14 century, without any Tohtamysh, it burned at least twice a generation - and nothing more. And who burned in the 1812 year is still not clear.

                        This wooden city burned down many times with huge loss of life, for no apparent reason.
                      5. Pomeranian
                        Pomeranian 13 January 2016 14: 13 New
                        0
                        Quote: AK64
                        In the 14 century, without any Tohtamysh, it burned at least twice a generation - and nothing more. And who burned in the 1812 year is still not clear.

                        Quote: AK64
                        My opponent claims that the Tatars regularly burned Moscow AFTER Tokhtamysh. You see, after.

                        You already take off the cross or put on your pants, my dear. What else do you need in evidence? Written confessions of Edigheus or Sahib Giray in the act?
                        Burned the Tatars to Moscow and after Tokhtamysh. Zhgli. In this case, your opponent is right, but you are not.
                      6. AK64
                        AK64 13 January 2016 16: 29 New
                        -1
                        What did you get to me?
                        You already told me that you "burned". I will right said they convinced.
                        So do you personally still need something from me? That’s for you personally - what?

                        You will share the complexes.

                        And he is a fact: after Kulikov, the Tatars somehow did not look for a battle with the Russian regular army, and they evaded it. All of their few and local in fact victories are the results of ambushes.

                        So what do you personally still want from me?
                        You tell me, do not hesitate: "can I give you something you want?"
                      7. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 16 January 2016 22: 16 New
                        0
                        You have some kind of perversion with an ambush, or an ambush with perversions.
                        The ambush regiment was on the field Kulikov lol
                3. The comment was deleted.
  • Pilat2009
    Pilat2009 12 January 2016 18: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    ... and a year later Tokhtamysh burned Moscow.

    He burned, because there was no prince with a squad in the city, and the city was taken by cunning.
    In general, the Tatar army was the most mobile at that time. Then, with the advent of guns and long-range guns, their advantage came to naught
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 January 2016 07: 07 New
      0
      Yeah, and no one even stood on the ramparts. Burned and then paid another 100 years
      Their advantage came to naught only with the long-range rifles that the archers had. And Europe did not need them because it did not fight with the steppe.
      1. AK64
        AK64 13 January 2016 09: 23 New
        -1
        Yeah, and no one even stood on the ramparts.

        Not just didn’t stand, but they were also discovered: a drunken crowd robbed the houses of the nobility.

        Burned and then paid another 100 years

        We should start with the fact that Tokhtamysh and Mamai are different things. Not people are different, but just different things: Mom is nothing more than a usurper. Then, Tokhtamysh’s raid was not for returning the tribute: he was thrown a denunciation, and it was overwhelming that Dmitry wanted to throw him and go to Lithuania. Here Tokhtamysh, a gullible steppe, and ran to punish.
        Yes, and tribute was paid not 100 years, but before Peter, and with Peter too - so what?

        Their advantage came to naught only with the long-range rifles that the archers had.

        Tell us about the long-range rifle archers!
        Or again "look for yourself"? Apparently, it will be so.
        Sagittarius had ordinary akebuses, and Perth had ordinary muskets. But after Kulikov, the Tatars never looked for a battle with the Russian army themselves, and only constantly avoided the battle. And all the defeats of the Russians from the Tatars after the Kulikov Field are the results of only and only ambushes.

        And Europe did not need them because it did not fight with the steppe.

        "Completely" or in the New Time? That is, when exactly did you not fight?
        1. Pomeranian
          Pomeranian 13 January 2016 09: 54 New
          0
          Quote: AK64
          Tell us about the long-range rifle archers!

          Sorry to interfere again with your most curious scientific debate, but rifled guns in Moscow have been known since the 16 century. Why have not received distribution? No rate of fire. It was necessary to hammer a bullet into the barrel with a wooden hammer, and this is a long and troublesome task. But, the fact that they were used not only on the hunt, the fact, I believe, is undeniable.
          1. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 12: 05 New
            0
            And in Europe, cutting has been found since the 15th century. and revolvers from the 16th. (There was an article about one of these, too - an interesting sample.) So what? What is the conclusion from this? You agree with the statement that "Their advantage came to naught only with long-range rifles that the archers had".? Agree or not? Five rifles for the entire army (for example), and even ten rifles; well, even if 50 or 100 pieces - will they make some kind of weather?

            Over the entire 18th century, where there are many examples of battles with the Tatars, the conclusion follows: if the square is built, then for some reason no bows to the Tatars help. And at the same time no rifles, completely smooth-bore muskets, which seem to be inferior in range to the bow. And there is no armor on the infantry at all.

            And for the 17th century the same thing, and for the 16th: if they managed to build and stand and do not run, then no bows help the Tatars. Think it's rifles?
            1. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 13 January 2016 12: 20 New
              0
              Quote: AK64
              You agree with the statement that "Their advantage came to naught only with the long-range rifles that the archers had." ? Do you agree or disagree?

              I agree that the introduction of the firearm has negated the advantage of the archers. Pishal, I mean a 20 mm Russian pishchal, the effectiveness of the fire of which guaranteed the defeat of all living things at 200 meters. Of course, the bullet could fly further. Can the previous speaker change the word "range" for mass character and accessibility, then it will be a lethal argument. For example, as the chronicle says, in the 16th century, 6000 beepers were easily equipped from a city of 1000 households.
              Quote: AK64
              Think it's rifles?

              The most accurate shooters - yes, rifles. Knock out the command, for example.
            2. AK64
              AK64 13 January 2016 13: 11 New
              0
              Can the previous speaker change the word "range" for mass character and accessibility, then it will be a lethal argument.
              In this case, this will be a completely different argument - this is exactly what they are trying to explain to him.

              Pishal, I mean 20 mm Russian peep, the effectiveness of the fire of which guaranteed the defeat of all living things by 200 meters.

              This is unlikely. Did someone check it? Well, a dozen buckshot. Well, two dozen - so "all living things" and at "200m"? It feels like you re-read Prozorov: his squeaker is cooler than a machine gun

              The most accurate shooters - yes, rifles. Knock out the command, for example.

              Why do you take a phrase out of context? After all, it says there:
              And for the 17th century the same thing, and for the 16th: if they managed to build and stand and do not run, then no bows help the Tatars. Think it's rifles [to the reason]?

              After all, the point is that if the infantry was built in a square (or a third, or a battle, or a Wagenburg, or ....), then somehow the bows did not help the Tatars. It doesn’t matter if there are rifles there or not at all.
            3. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 13 January 2016 14: 17 New
              0
              Quote: AK64
              This is unlikely. Did someone check it? Well, a dozen buckshot. Well, two dozen - so "all living things" and "200m"?

              There was such a program "I Serve the Soviet Union", I was small, but I never missed "The History of Your Weapons". So there about 200 meters (not steps) was sounded like that. And later I met this figure. Prozorov, apart from "The Pagans of Baptized Rus", have not read anything.
              Quote: AK64
              After all, the point is that if the infantry was built in a square (or a third, or a battle, or a Wagenburg, or ....), then somehow the bows did not help the Tatars. It doesn’t matter if there are rifles there or not at all.

              Well, yes, you tell Mark Crassus about this. About the infantry system against mounted archers.
            4. AK64
              AK64 13 January 2016 16: 31 New
              0
              You better tell me about the third of Mark Crassus.

              I finished the conversation with you: you are on the ignore list (in the company with Scraptor, talking to which is equally useless)
            5. AK64
              AK64 13 January 2016 16: 40 New
              0
              By the way, if we are talking about "the third of Mark Crassus": there was an episode mentioned by Gumilev and then independently promoted by all sorts of Discovery: Romans in China.

              The Chinese, modern already, have found the Romans in China!
              It turned out that these are the fighters of this Crassus, captured by the Parthians and sent by them to the eastern border. In 36 g. they ran into ... a detachment of Chinese, and the Chinese allegedly corrupted gunmen from crossbows.
              And they did not even need horsemen for this: the Chinese crossbow was stitching the legionnaire instead of with a shield.
              The remnants of the Romans were captured by the Chinese, and somewhere there they settled in Xinjiang. Allegedly, the Chinese found the descendants of these legionnaires who still have their pedigrees from the Romans.

              (I think about "found" and "pedigree" is a fiction. But the fact itself is similar to the truth.)
            6. andj61
              andj61 13 January 2016 16: 52 New
              0
              Quote: AK64
              The Chinese, modern already, have found the Romans in China!

              Beautiful story, but dubious ...
              Parthia is practically the territory of present-day Iran-Iraq, plus the eastern parts of Turkey, the western parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the southern parts of Turkmenistan. It was unlikely that they could meet with the Chinese, unless they were purposefully sold to the slavers ... But the Chinese did not go west further than Xinjiang ...
            7. AK64
              AK64 13 January 2016 18: 00 New
              0
              The fact is that the Han (the Han Dynasty) climbed very far west along the Silk Road: not only the Turfan oasis, but also Yarkend and Kashgar were Chinese. We are used to thinking of the Chinese as cute and peaceful artisans, but there is a lot to their history.

              Yes, here is a map of the Han conquest.


              The very fact of the battle is allegedly in the Chinese chronicles. (As you yourself understand, I did not check their chronicles.) And the Chinese also confirm what is in the chronicles. That "found descendants" sounds a little (or many, many - all the same 2000 years) is wild.

              The Parthians did not collide with the Chinese as states. The above-mentioned Chinese detachment allegedly pursued the Xiongnu who were leaving to the west, well, and ran into some "very strange people" with very strange tactics.

              Yes, about "did not go": look at the Battle of Talas, 751.
              From 30 to 100 (!!!) thousand participated on each side. The battle lasted five days (!!) until the Karluk Turks decided that they did not like the Chinese very much, and did not hit those in the rear.
            8. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 13 January 2016 20: 06 New
              0
              Quote: andj61
              Beautiful story, but dubious ...

              No, not doubtful. You are ignoring me, what if your interlocutor of AK 64 doesn’t push me?
              Then I’ll tell you the following: the story is real, if I’m not mistaken, some unit of the 12th Legion faced the Chinese. They could not do anything with the infantrymen hiding behind shields and field fortifications, and the Romans did not even try to catch up with horse-drawn crossbowmen. Not only that, remember such a poet Hovhannes Tumanyan? So, he comes from a noble Armenian family of Mamikonyans, who lead their family tree from the Chinese. So the Chinese wandered far to the west and could well clash with the Romans.
            9. Scraptor
              Scraptor 17 January 2016 20: 57 New
              0
              Somehow, these equestrian crossbowmen then could not do anything with the Mongolian archers.
            10. Pomeranian
              Pomeranian 18 January 2016 11: 10 New
              0
              Quote: Scraptor
              Somehow, these equestrian crossbowmen then could not do anything with the Mongolian archers.

              If this is my post, then there were Chinese horse-drawn crossbowmen and the Romans from the 12 Legion.
            11. Scraptor
              Scraptor 18 January 2016 16: 12 New
              0
              It was in general - Yes, even from the 13th Research Institute, until the first rifled gunshot from the steppe archers, there was no salvation because the contact battle, unlike the fly agaric laughing Swedish cavalry they did not go.
              By the way, it was against Apaches with much weaker bows in America that first appeared long-barreled revolvers and then revolving guns / rifles.
      2. Pomeranian
        Pomeranian 13 January 2016 21: 02 New
        0
        Quote: andj61
        Beautiful story, but dubious ...

        No, not doubtful. You are ignoring me, what if your interlocutor of AK 64 doesn’t push me?
        Then I’ll tell you the following: the story is real, if I’m not mistaken, some unit of the 12th Legion faced the Chinese. They could not do anything with the infantrymen hiding behind shields and field fortifications, and the Romans did not even try to catch up with horse-drawn crossbowmen. Not only that, remember such a poet Hovhannes Tumanyan? So, he comes from a noble Armenian family of Mamikonyans, who lead their family tree from the Chinese. So the Chinese wandered far to the west and could well clash with the Romans.
      3. Aljavad
        Aljavad 14 January 2016 02: 36 New
        0
        andj61 RU Yesterday, 16:52 ↑
        Quote: AK64
        The Chinese, modern already, have found the Romans in China!
        Beautiful story, but dubious ...
        Parthia is practically the territory of present-day Iran-Iraq, plus the eastern parts of Turkey, the western parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the southern parts of Turkmenistan. It was unlikely that they could meet with the Chinese, unless they were purposefully sold to the slavers ... But the Chinese did not go west further than Xinjiang ...


        That period is called the "Era of Three Empires": Rome-Parthia-China. Literally "from the sea home." On the edge of Xinjiang and met. Not like the border with Rome in Armenia, but still.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 13 January 2016 19: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: AK64
    You are on the ignore list (in the company with Scraptor, talking with which is equally useless)

    Yes, and do not care. One less hysterical.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 January 2016 20: 46 New
    0
    Of course, smooth-bore weapons work aiming at 50-100, depending on the size of the target (but not more than 200), from the steppe onions they hit the line of beeper quietly for half a kilometer. From riflemen with a rifled horse-drawn horde, it flew aiming in response up to one and a half times further (700-800) and this decided the matter.
    And for Napoleon's soldiers with one smooth-bore, these "steppe cupids" were a scourge, especially since the frogs no longer had body armor.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 January 2016 20: 36 New
    +1
    In archers, at least every third barrel was rifled, or even every second.
    What more are four of a kind? With bayonets chtoli arrows beat off?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 January 2016 20: 34 New
    0
    Why did they get that they did not receive distribution? It was only with such weapons that the steppe was driven away - it fired no more than 3 rakha less often than a shotgun, but it was much more accurate and therefore got archers further than before they fired almost with impunity.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 17 January 2016 20: 29 New
    0
    Quote: AK64
    Tell us about the long-range rifle archers!
    Or again "look for yourself"? Apparently, it will be so.
    Sagittarius had ordinary hippies,

    Not ordinary but rifled. A rifled barrel shoots much more accurately than a smooth one, this is the same fitting that huntsmen later had before the Crimean events of the XNUMXth century
    The range of effective / aimed fire of smoothbore weapons to steppe bows is much inferior, the rifled range, on the contrary, exceeds their range. If the lead round bullet retains its penetrating ability (no matter how strong the smooth-bore squeak), then it will not even burrow under the horses' legs but about 100 meters before them, or fly high at the archers above their heads.
  • AK64
    AK64 13 January 2016 09: 15 New
    0
    He burned, because there was no prince with a squad in the city, and the city was taken by cunning.


    The city was NOT "taken" and COULD NOT be "taken", because Tokhtamikh, striving to ensure surprise and speed of the march, simply did not take any siege equipment with him at all. How would he take the city?

    The city was open, or, if you like, surrendered by a drunken population that IMHO is a big difference
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 January 2016 10: 39 New
      0
      And what does that change? Because of the mobility of his troops, he did not achieve his goal? The siege equipment was not taken with itself; almost all of its details were made in place of wood.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 12 January 2016 12: 15 New
    0
    Do not dissemble Lithuania, you know everything ...
  • Mangel olys
    Mangel olys 12 January 2016 14: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Aitvaras
    It was interesting to attend the Battle of Kulikovo battle. The Tartar cavalry was then armed with bows and massively fired at Russian arrows, but as subsequent events showed, the bows were not so effective.

    During excavations on the Kulikovo field, objects were found that are shown in the picture, which is what I can explain:
  • The comment was deleted.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 19 New
    +2
    You can buy something. Only it is also necessary to ensure the mass training of the archers themselves and the uninterrupted supply of their horses. And this ale lacked social and economic prerequisites. That is, the very way of agricultural civilization does not contribute to this. As a way of cattle breeding civilization does not contribute to the development of high-quality infantry, the construction of cathedrals and much more.
    The same Ottomans had a mixed way. With unusually developed regions of agricultural civilization, there was also a vast cattle-breeding sector. Therefore, the brilliant port had both good infantry and navy, and high-quality light cavalry.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 January 2016 11: 57 New
      -4
      It was impossible to buy - no one would have sold.
      Every English archer had a horse, they shot in a hurry. Archers were the most expensive warriors and could afford it.
      The artillery of the Turks was then the best.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 06 New
        +4
        Archers were the most expensive warriors and could afford it.
        Oh how! Directly more expensive than a knight? Do not tell me the cost of the kit for the archer in comparison with the arbalester and the knight for the era ..., say, the battle of Agincourt? And also the daily salary rates for the mentioned categories of military?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 13: 35 New
          -3
          A knight is not a warrior but a nobleman. The archer stood closer to the knight before Agincourt. In addition to the kit, there is also skill.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 13: 46 New
            +2
            A knight is a heavily armed cavalryman. All! Dot! Everything else: his status, show off ... comes from this simple fact. And also because of its high cost and the fact that in the early Middle Ages, with poor state institutions and the economy that degraded after the Roman Empire (and hence the fiscal base), a feudal system was established for manning the aforementioned heavy cavalry.
            An archer, in medieval realities, is as far from a knight as the Chukchi in the middle of the tundra from the Moscow Bolshoi Theater.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 01 New
              -4
              This is not a show off but a provision. A knight is almost always not a mercenary but a feudal lord. The European archer is a mercenary and not a peasant.
              Parthia is where the Romans were shot in the same way and then they poured gold on Crazy Crassus, after which he went into his throat. Although the ramlings had at least some kind of armor and shields.
              Chukchi were good acrobats and archers, and ballet is a non-Russian word and with bare thighs you can shine only on photo-jabs but not win in battle
              1. kalibr
                12 January 2016 16: 31 New
                0
                Where did you get this information from, what is interesting to me? What sources do you get so ... "valuable information" from?
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 12 January 2016 17: 24 New
                  0
                  try google about it ...

                  but at the same time think about what will happen with the mostly foot army around which you can ride and water it with arrows and it will stupidly stand or try to catch up with those who do it
              2. Aljavad
                Aljavad 14 January 2016 02: 40 New
                0
                A knight is almost always not a mercenary but a feudal lord.


                Feudal lord = owner of the feud. The younger sons of the feud did not have, but there were knights. And not the feudal lords. To feed themselves, they were hired by the feudal lord (king). Or to the city.

                There were contraceptives. And the younger sons for each feudal lord were 10 pieces, not counting the small ones.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 18 January 2016 11: 52 New
                  0
                  And what was their heraldic coat of arms?
                  Black knights were but in the minority.
                  Of the cities then in Europe there was only Paris, what for he didn’t need knights - they so impurities carried them outside the city wall that they somehow took them through this frozen pile by storm, and wolves also climbed the streets climbing into the city through it.
          2. AK64
            AK64 12 January 2016 22: 23 New
            +1
            Is this the Yeomen something "close to the knight"?

            / and shook his head /
          3. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 02: 25 New
            0
            A knight is not a warrior but a nobleman.

            A very unexpected statement ... Just a very ...
            Indeed, there are four errors in a three-letter word - you don’t even know which one to correct ...
          4. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 02: 25 New
            0
            A knight is not a warrior but a nobleman.

            A very unexpected statement ... Just a very ...
            Indeed, there are four errors in a three-letter word - you don’t even know which one to correct ...
      2. kalibr
        12 January 2016 12: 38 New
        +2
        The archers were peasants, yeomen. Read the English statutes of Edward 1 and Henry 8 ... There is also an interesting edition of Osprey "Longbow" - take a look.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 13: 38 New
          -3
          Yeomen is not an ordinary peasant. Archery must be mastered and trained, archers were content, no one forbade them to engage in agriculture.
          1. kalibr
            12 January 2016 16: 33 New
            +2
            And therefore, the peasants were completely forbidden to play football on Sundays, so that they could control the bow!
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 January 2016 17: 29 New
              -1
              One day in non-lele, as with any sports, is not enough. On Sundays they go to church. And for football on Saturday afternoon.
              And the hired swordsmen were also peasants?
          2. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 02: 30 New
            -1
            Yeomen is not an ordinary peasant.


            Exactly what is ordinary. But not a serf ("serv") but personally free and having land.
            And the archers have never been on any "allowance": to engage in shooting as a popular sport - instead of the godless and useless football - was directly prescribed to the villain by royal decrees.
            You would at least read the Stevenson radar, or something.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 13 January 2016 07: 10 New
              -1
              You would at least think chtoli with your own head and study European mercenarism - an archer was much more expensive than a latnik.
  • dokusib
    dokusib 12 January 2016 13: 56 New
    +1
    Onions to buy a little. Need to master the technique. That is what was taught in the army of Genghis Khan from an early age. The horseman did not pull the bowstring, but kept the arrow laid on the bowstring near his cheek aiming. Then he straightened his hand holding the bow and at the moment of greatest tension he lowered the arrow. This is mentioned by V.G. Yan in his trilogy about the Mongol-Tatars.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 16 New
      -1
      Actually, the grip of the bowstring is different and nobody almost never aimed at the arrow, just like cowboys beat from the hip like a revolver.
      Even with this multi-shot firearm, as well as with single-shot propellers then, they had to destroy the bison in order to defeat the Indians (although their bows were worse than the steppes).
      1. Aljavad
        Aljavad 14 January 2016 02: 47 New
        -1
        they had to destroy the bison with vintars in order to defeat the Indians (although their bows were worse than the steppes).


        Composite bows of Apaches are quite comparable with Tatar ones - up to 70kg on a tiva.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 January 2016 11: 54 New
          0
          And what is the "move" of these 70kg? laughing English bows from 70kg also kept a lot.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 18 January 2016 12: 11 New
          0
          “The Apache bows were versatile, made of 1.04 m hickory wood with a 56 cm stretch. With a penetration force of up to 12,7 kg, a firing range of 110 m. The arrows were light, since Apaches mostly used dagger archery. they weren't bothered, so the arrows were made of light wood like the bows themselves. "
          https://www.proza.ru/2011/10/25/595
          Where do you see Mongolian onions (bone, lacquer, tendons and light shooting for half a meter)?
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 33 New
      +3
      I recommend that you shoot from the bow. The method of shot you describe is more like a joke.
    3. AK64
      AK64 13 January 2016 02: 33 New
      +1
      This is mentioned by V.G. Yan in his trilogy about the Mongol-Tatars.

      Yang as a source of knowledge?
      / and shook his head /

      In general, equestrian shooting is OBVIOUSLY much more difficult than standing on the ground: driving a horse and operating a bow simultaneously requires skill, and Jan has nothing to do with it.
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 12 January 2016 17: 55 New
    -1
    Export restrictions are the same as for silkworm pupae and with the same severity of punishment for their violation.
  • AK64
    AK64 12 January 2016 22: 08 New
    0
    Will you give them money on bows?
    English archers - this peyzane, the Holodroots. English onion - a knife and a couple of hours of time.

    And what kind of bows do Arabs and Byzantines have? The Arabs did not fight with bows.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 22: 24 New
      0
      1. According to the English bow, you gave a somewhat simplified and exaggerated concept. The design of the English longbow is certainly very simple, but there are subtleties. As for the raw materials - elm, surprisingly, the local English elm was worse in quality and for combat bows the overwhelming majority of timber was imported from Spain.

      2. Arabs had bows, were ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 13 January 2016 02: 42 New
        0
        First yew. They also made of elm, made of oak too, but the yew is the same: the yew has smaller annual rings.
        Secondly, I greatly exaggerated about "a couple of hours": the only problem was with proper drying (not raw and not dry, but in okurat).
        Thirdly, there were bows, and they were also found, and in general - logs and logs. (It’s clear that this is improvisation, but nonetheless.)

        About Arab archers, namely in war and not in hunting, I heard the first time. And the equestrian ... As far as I know, the Arabs fought in the same way on foot (using mounts for crossings).
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 13 January 2016 10: 13 New
          0
          Arabs massively used cavalry and shelling, from bows and darts. In addition, at the time of the Arab conquests in Spain, the equipment of cavalry among the Arabs was better than in Western Europe. This is precisely what prompted the Franks to reform the army from a mass infantry militia to a professional, expensive cavalry. What led to the creation of the Lena system - the famous feudalism of the European sample.
          Despite the large number and high quality of the Franks infantry, its strategic mobility and low maneuverability on the battlefield did not allow them to withstand the Arabs' invasions normally. Because the infantry could defeat the Arabs only by forcing them to a frontal foot attack. What was possible was very not always. The Arabs preferred a massive remote cavalry battle (as subsequently the Mongols).

          The Battle of Arsuf (September 7, 1191, 3 Crusade) also clearly demonstrates the main tactics of the Arabs - the debilitating beam attack on the enemy. Unlike the Mongolian, the Arabic bow was weaker. Therefore, Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad described the difference between the crossbows of Christians and the bows of Muslims. According to him, he saw the Crusaders, in whose arms ten arrows stuck out, without causing them much harm, while crossbows hit both horses and Muslim soldiers.

          About the material of the English longbow, I was mistaken. I wrote late at night already. It was of course yew, as the best material for such a bow.
          1. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 12: 49 New
            0
            Arabs massively used cavalry and shelling, from bows and darts.

            From what you wrote below it is obvious that you understand the term "Arabs" very, very broadly. In a very broad sense. But in my opinion Salladin (the Battle of Arsuf, which you mentioned) is not an Arab at all. It's just not an Arab at all. This is the same as writing down modern Syrians as Arabs: that is, in a conversation it is probably possible to do this, but you should not draw conclusions about Arabs based on acquaintance with Syrians (and vice versa) IMHO.

            So the Arabs in the narrow sense, it is somewhere around the 7-8th century, the caliphates, and somehow not particularly marked with bows, and horses and camels were used more for movement.

            In addition, at the time of the Arab conquests in Spain, the equipment of cavalry among the Arabs was better than in Western Europe.

            There were all the same Tuaregs, Berbers, Moroccans at last: they are not exactly Arabs. The Goths opposed them in Spain - they are generally not equestrian traditionally. And francs in the 8th century are not knights at all: there is an opinion that they did not even have stirrups. The Germans (Franks) at that time were mainly infantry.


            This is precisely what prompted the Franks to reform the army from a mass infantry militia to a professional, expensive cavalry. What led to the creation of the Lena system - the famous feudalism of the European sample.

            I think that the causes of the investigation are directly rearranged here: I think that we can safely ascribe the same to the transition from military democracy to classical feudal society. And it is unlikely that this transition was accelerated by the Arabs. However, I see no reason to argue - we will consider IMHO.


            Despite the large number and high quality of the Franks infantry, its strategic mobility and low maneuverability on the battlefield did not allow them to withstand the Arabs' invasions normally.

            Regarding the number of francs (as a matter of fact, I’m ready), the estimates vary greatly. Most today are of the opinion that the Franks and the Goths did not have any noticeable numerical advantage. The Goths in Spain were alien conquerors; the locals did not participate in their army. That is why one defeat was enough for an almost complete conquest. It looks like with the francs.

            About the material of the English longbow, I was mistaken. I wrote late at night already. It was of course yew, as the best material for such a bow.

            You weren't really wrong: you made a lot of them, and elm is quite a common material. But the export of materials was not because the export material was better, but because it was precisely during the 100-year war that the material for bows was sorely lacking. Hence the export, and the royal monopolies on yews, including even customs duties levied on harvesting for bows: this is all characteristic of the 15th century - just a war. English bows quickly fell into disrepair (well, the flip side of cheapness): they dried up or got tired ("followed the aunt"), and they needed to be replaced constantly and in huge quantities
          2. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 12: 49 New
            0
            Arabs massively used cavalry and shelling, from bows and darts.

            From what you wrote below it is obvious that you understand the term "Arabs" very, very broadly. In a very broad sense. But in my opinion Salladin (the Battle of Arsuf, which you mentioned) is not an Arab at all. It's just not an Arab at all. This is the same as writing down modern Syrians as Arabs: that is, in a conversation it is probably possible to do this, but you should not draw conclusions about Arabs based on acquaintance with Syrians (and vice versa) IMHO.

            So the Arabs in the narrow sense, it is somewhere around the 7-8th century, the caliphates, and somehow not particularly marked with bows, and horses and camels were used more for movement.

            In addition, at the time of the Arab conquests in Spain, the equipment of cavalry among the Arabs was better than in Western Europe.

            There were all the same Tuaregs, Berbers, Moroccans at last: they are not exactly Arabs. The Goths opposed them in Spain - they are generally not equestrian traditionally. And francs in the 8th century are not knights at all: there is an opinion that they did not even have stirrups. The Germans (Franks) at that time were mainly infantry.


            This is precisely what prompted the Franks to reform the army from a mass infantry militia to a professional, expensive cavalry. What led to the creation of the Lena system - the famous feudalism of the European sample.

            I think that the causes of the investigation are directly rearranged here: I think that we can safely ascribe the same to the transition from military democracy to classical feudal society. And it is unlikely that this transition was accelerated by the Arabs. However, I see no reason to argue - we will consider IMHO.


            Despite the large number and high quality of the Franks infantry, its strategic mobility and low maneuverability on the battlefield did not allow them to withstand the Arabs' invasions normally.

            Regarding the number of francs (as a matter of fact, I’m ready), the estimates vary greatly. Most today are of the opinion that the Franks and the Goths did not have any noticeable numerical advantage. The Goths in Spain were alien conquerors; the locals did not participate in their army. That is why one defeat was enough for an almost complete conquest. It looks like with the francs.

            About the material of the English longbow, I was mistaken. I wrote late at night already. It was of course yew, as the best material for such a bow.

            You weren't really wrong: you made a lot of them, and elm is quite a common material. But the export of materials was not because the export material was better, but because it was precisely during the 100-year war that the material for bows was sorely lacking. Hence the export, and the royal monopolies on yews, including even customs duties levied on harvesting for bows: this is all characteristic of the 15th century - just a war. English bows quickly fell into disrepair (well, the flip side of cheapness): they dried up or got tired ("followed the aunt"), and they needed to be replaced constantly and in huge quantities
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 12 January 2016 10: 47 New
    10
    and strong crossbows are too heavy and shot too rarely
    And most importantly, the process of loading a powerful crossbow was by no means simplified in the riding position and on the gallop. Rather, it even looked like a trick of a rather non-contingent circus performer.
    but a little more specialized, but incomparably more expensive pistols have sunk into oblivion.
    Reitars were significantly cheaper than cuirassiers. Despite the high cost of pistols. Cuirassier armor is also much more expensive than Reitarsky armor, even with the same structural configuration (three-quarters or half-armor).
    And ... the reitars didn’t disappear right away. Reytarsky regiments existed in Napoleonic times, as well as cuirassiers. It's just that the share of the reiter has steadily decreased. Since they were replaced (or reformed) by more universal hussars (not of the Polish armored type), i.e. light cavalry capable of waging both gunshot and hand-to-hand combat.
    Karakolirovanie with volleys of pistols became meaningless due to the fact that pikemen were abandoned in the infantry and all infantrymen began to arm themselves with a long-barreled firearm, which had a significantly greater lethal range compared to pistols. Because of this, Reyta’s tactics turned into a kind of shooting range in ranks for infantry salvos.

    The cuirassiers finally lost at least some military value when rifled rifles began to be introduced everywhere in the army, especially for cartridge loading instead of smoothbore and muzzle-loading. That is, when the distance of the lethal action of volleys radically increased and the pause for reloading was greatly reduced.
    If earlier, although the musket could have pierced heavy cuirassier armor at distances of about 100 meters, the reload time (even taking into account several lines) gave a chance to jump to a gallop to the line and enter hand-to-hand combat (after which heavy cavalry with interest could return everything to the enemy infantry that suffered on rapprochement). Then, with the increase in the slaughter distance to several hundred meters and an increase in the reload speed, the cuirassier had no chance to do anything significant other than a heroic death.
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 January 2016 12: 04 New
      -2
      Powerful - yes, but ordinary Polish stirrups were charged.

      The armor that could withstand infantry bullets simply became too expensive. Karakolirovanie was before the appearance of minnier bullets. This is a hussar’s tactic and not Reythar’s one, they rode a string past the ranks as in the case of horse-riding and not on the ranks and shot him. It was difficult to get into the riders, but it was easy to get into the ranks of the foot soldiers. The Hungarian hussars did not have a peak to attack the ranks with melee weapons.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 17 New
        +5
        If it were very expensive, but guaranteed something, it would be preserved. But what can be guaranteed when not only infantry with large-caliber muskets, but also artillery buckshot mocking at super-expensive Uber fighters? Only high losses.
        Despite the fact that to compensate for the loss of the Holozad infantry with a firearm in their hands, if necessary, it is possible in a couple of months (there would be a stock of trunks in the arsenals). A knight must be trained and educated since childhood. And his equipment is expensive.
        So God turned out to be on the side of large battalions with relatively cheap and easily replaceable units.

        And karakole, just the same Reytarsky tactics. With the invention of which Reitars as a kind of cavalry, in general, appeared. Hussars at that time were the usual plate heavy cavalry of Eastern Europe, manned according to the most common feudal principle.
        1. kalibr
          12 January 2016 12: 40 New
          -1
          Gus = ten, tithing from 10 yards to 1 rider!
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 47 New
            +1
            What specific era? In which particular region?
            And then, raising money for the rider is one thing. But to put into operation, completely different. A dead rider cannot be replaced simply by going to the store and buying. It needs to be trained.
            And if you can train an arquebusier or pikeer quickly, then the rider is not.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 13: 45 New
          -3
          It survived only to allow it for money almost alone commanders could already. It is without the usual cuirassiers.
          It was written about the Hungarian hussars of the 19th century and not about the Polish era of the Commonwealth.
          This bare-ass puff of frogs with firearms received arrows both near Outerlitz and in Russia. When both the Polish and Italian cavalry, before they ate their horses, they fell in pursuit of the steppe inhabitants under the "Parthian shot-arrow".

          Only rifled weapons began to beat more accurately than the steppe strong bow.
    2. dokusib
      dokusib 12 January 2016 14: 03 New
      0
      Abrakadabre you 5+. Added the correct ending for a good Article!
    3. brn521
      brn521 12 January 2016 14: 09 New
      -1
      Quote: abrakadabre
      And most importantly, the process of loading a powerful crossbow was by no means simplified in the riding position and on the gallop.

      Here, in my opinion, the problem is that the growth in the production of good steel went side by side with the development of a firearm. There was a real problem - the superiority of pikemen over cavalry. As a result, in order to get into the infantry system, it was necessary to at least first mix its front ranks. If there weren’t pistols, crossbows would surely become this means. We are not talking about reloading, because with such use, it was assumed that the weapon was one volley. Which does not replace a certain universality in application, if necessary, you can dismount and start firing with reloading, in case of a siege or loss of a horse, for example.
      Quote: abrakadabre
      Rather, it even looked like a trick of a rather non-contingent circus performer.

      Still would. The same mechanisms intended for infantry are either inconvenient or long. You can come up with something for the cavalry. The construction would be especially successful if horse power and inertia could be used. A pole for this with an emphasis in the ground to adapt, or a hook. With a firearm, of course, nothing like this was required to invent.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 41 New
        +1
        These are mechanisms for pulling a crossbow that can pierce armor. And not specifically adapted for walking. And if an infantryman does this handily taking cover behind a pavilion, then actively maneuvering on horseback is simply impossible. And the crossbow that can be pulled on horseback will be so weak that it’s useless against armored men, but most likely even for shooting pigeons.
        A bow in this sense is much more convenient. Therefore, it was used. Unlike a crossbow.
        1. brn521
          brn521 12 January 2016 17: 25 New
          -1
          Quote: abrakadabre
          actively maneuvering on horseback, this is simply impossible.

          Mount for the crossbow at the saddle do? Easily. Any lever that you have to swing 150 times with one hand to cock? Also. So no tricks, only mechanics and time. The problem is not this, but the high cost and insecurity compared to a firearm.
          Quote: abrakadabre
          the crossbow that can be pulled on horseback will be so weak that it’s not useless against armored men, but most likely even for shooting pigeons.

          What is the fundamental difference, swing the lever 10, 50 or 300 times? It's all about the mechanism and gear ratios, even if you swing or twist it with your finger, only it will take much more time.
          So it would be better to use the force of the horse to pull, then time will be saved. Hooked one end of the cord for something, drove a couple of meters - a crossbow cocked. To the extreme option, you can pair up with someone, hooking the charging mechanisms for each other and using the power of two horses in the opposite direction. Remove part of the loading mechanisms from the crossbow, having built it somewhere in the saddle. Having worked out mutual movement, it will be possible to issue several crossbow volleys per minute, if the mechanisms do not jam or the bowstrings do not burst.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 18: 29 New
            +1
            We will not do it, but what it really was in that era. And the reality was that all the so-called "horse crossbowmen" were infantrymen, only brought to the required place on horseback, and not fighting with a crossbow in the battle formations of cavalry.
            Regardless of your notions, there are some possible hypothetical devices for reloading a powerful crossbow for a gallop.
            1. brn521
              brn521 13 January 2016 16: 08 New
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              And the reality was that all the so-called "mounted crossbowmen" were infantrymen, only brought to the required place on horseback

              This is contrary to historical documents. There were full-fledged horse-drawn crossbowmen who did not know how to use in large-scale battles (they did not master the assigned tasks), but they used it. Well, on a hunt or in small skirmishes, horse-drawn arbalester existed almost everywhere. And they even lived to see a flint-fire gun, though, more and more, they were rolling back into the hunt. Trying to use them in the troops is just a rational approach. Since hunting or in small groups are effective, then it is possible to find application in large-scale battles.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              Regardless of your notions, there are some possible hypothetical devices for reloading a powerful crossbow for a gallop.

              And the point is to study questions and not think?
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 12 January 2016 15: 11 New
    0
    The Chinese had horse-drawn crossbowmen during the time of the Roman Empire. Most likely the author’s assumption is correct.
    1. brn521
      brn521 12 January 2016 18: 05 New
      0
      Not only among the Chinese. A whole article on Wikipedia on this topic, with all the links and justifications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B0%D1%80%
      D0% B1% D0% B0% D0% BB% D0% B5% D1% 82% D1% 87% D0% B8% D0% BA% D0% B8. In some places in Europe there were more horse-drawn crossbowmen than knights. Unlike European archers, they shot and reloaded without getting out of the saddle. But before the gunshot, it was possible to use such troops expensively and not effectively enough. And after the firearm, the meaning disappeared, to develop and invent something. The same problem with the rate of fire was not resolved, more convenient layouts were not found, etc. - to hunters who became the main consumers of crossbows, it was no longer necessary.
  • AK64
    AK64 12 January 2016 22: 06 New
    0
    In-in ...
    In addition, the English archers were paisans - where did their horses come from?
  • avt
    avt 12 January 2016 10: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Good cat
    A good article, I was surprised when I saw that the author is a woman.

    Yes . Nice excursion good A good popularization of quite specific military-historical material and illustrated quite well, what is now called the "article format", turned out to be successful.
  • Sweles
    Sweles 12 January 2016 12: 30 New
    -1


    Cossack lava - a special cavalry system involved the use of PICs, drafts and carbines. Cossack charters up to 1mv prescribed the use of a peak as an effective weapon for breaking through defensive lines despite trenches and machine guns, which is surprising, apparently even the presence of machine guns could not provide the necessary density of fire to stop rocking lava.
    As for wheel locks, such a weapon mechanism was very unreliable in battle, difficult to reload and expensive to make, so the mass use of such weapons was doubtful in those eras. But this is how all kinds of exhibition, award and possibly hunting ones took place more often than army ...
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 37 New
      +3
      Explain in detail how such a special Cossack lava differs from the cavalry constructions used in the Middle Ages? Well besides the origin of the name.

      Effective, despite the "trenches and machine guns, which is surprising" ... You just have to add engineering barbed wire barriers, anti-tank ditches, aircraft and permanent concrete structures. AND! And the ocean fleet to the same heap!
      1. Sweles
        Sweles 12 January 2016 12: 46 New
        -1
        Quote: abrakadabre
        Explain in detail how such a special Cossack lava differs from the cavalry buildings used in the Middle Ages? Well besides the origin of the name.


        if the peaks used the Angles in the Crimean War and the Yankees in the civil war, then the use of the peak by Cossacks including 1mv indicates the effectiveness of the tactics of using the peak with cavalry, this is what they differed from the rest of the cavalrymen ...
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 12 January 2016 12: 58 New
          +5
          The limited effectiveness of the pike attack came only from the special conditions of the theater of operations on the eastern front. No more. The echeloned and engineer-equipped defense of the battle model at the Somme or Verdun, saturated with machine guns and artillery, a massive cavalry attack with spades or any other melee weapons is not only futile, but absolutely suicidal.
          1. Sweles
            Sweles 12 January 2016 13: 29 New
            0
            Quote: abrakadabre
            The limited effectiveness of the pike attack came only from the special conditions of the theater of operations on the eastern front. No more. The echeloned and engineer-equipped defense of the battle model at the Somme or Verdun, saturated with machine guns and artillery, a massive cavalry attack with spades or any other melee weapons is not only futile, but absolutely suicidal.


            deep analysis, most importantly fresh, Cossacks were not idiots and even Romanov’s chief commanders in different wars were not inclined to attack with cavalry — an expensive type of troops — fortified defensive lines, a strike by Cossack lavas became possible only with the corresponding artillery processing of defense or in butt cavalry battles, i.e. . under certain operational conditions at the front ...
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 12 January 2016 13: 51 New
              +2
              That is, with a whole series of arising or specially prepared circumstances.
              In contrast to the realities of the Middle Ages, when often a knightly squad could and regularly attacked the superior forces of some commoners almost from the march in the forehead and achieved victory.

              What are we talking about then? smile
              1. Sweles
                Sweles 12 January 2016 14: 43 New
                -1
                Quote: abrakadabre
                What are we talking about then?


                yes about that, probably, what actually were the wars in the Middle Ages, in the so-called conditionally visible past. Shpakovskaya in her article claims that spear-lances in the 16th century were replaced by pistols, and then again replaced by peaks, because the cavalry peaks, as I showed, were used up to the 20th century. The war of those years was carried out using a variety of weapons and bows, and self-arrows, and the peak , and fire fighting and such a mixed type of weapon says that probably before the appearance of a bayonet and a cartridge for a firearm, cold steel had no less advantage over firearms - it all depended on tactics. And only when Colonel Colt called everyone equal, only then the revolver pistol became more effective than the bow, and archers were used in the armies of Turkey and China in the 18th century ...
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 16 January 2016 22: 35 New
                  0
                  rifled carbine and not a revolver, a revolver as far as a bow does not shoot
          2. Scraptor
            Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 21 New
            0
            On the fortress wall, too, no one in their mind climbs with a lance.
            1. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak 12 January 2016 16: 10 New
              0
              Scraptor "No one in their mind with a lance climbs the fortress wall either."
              Cossacks during the assault of Ishmael climbed with shortened peaks. And they had big losses.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 12 January 2016 17: 31 New
                0
                And who sent them there for this on Turkish sabers?
                1. Nagaibak
                  Nagaibak 12 January 2016 20: 52 New
                  +1
                  = Scraptor "And who sent them there exactly for this on Turkish sabers?"
                  And guess.))) Only probably not so much on sabers, rather on scimitars. And in the First World War, the Orenburg Cossacks in one of the attacks on the Austrian fortified area on foot walked chopping drafts with wire. And whoever was with the peaks beat the Austrians literally pushing them from above, then the length did not interfere. They ran around the parapet of trenches .. they pricked, and there was no need to go down. Very well it turned out, you know.
                  If interested, I can find where I read it. This is from the docs. There are no bad types of weapons; there is their improper use.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 13 January 2016 07: 19 New
                    0
                    stabbing someone in the trench with a long lance (which could be shortened in one fell swoop) is one thing and climbing and waving on the wall is another.
                    scimitars were only among the Janissaries, this is a curved saber on the contrary
                    1. Nagaibak
                      Nagaibak 13 January 2016 09: 02 New
                      0
                      Scraptor "stabbing someone in the trench in the heel with a long lance (which could be shortened in one fell swoop) is one thing, but climbing and swinging on the wall is another."
                      With long peaks, no one climbed the walls. But the Austrians had nothing to shorten.)) Again the wrong use of weapons is not, that it is bad.
                      About scimitars, but what was there with sabers in Izmail and there were no Janissaries?)))
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 13 January 2016 10: 47 New
                      -2
                      With two-handed swords, too ... They climbed the walls with short boarding weapons.
                      The peak could simply be thrown and picked up later.
                      Maybe they were but not in the majority, the Janissaries are not the Turkish army at all, but barefoot explosives from Slavic mankurts to suppress the uprisings.
                    3. Nagaibak
                      Nagaibak 13 January 2016 12: 02 New
                      0
                      Scraptor "Maybe there were, but not in the majority, the Janissaries are not the Turkish army at all, but the barefoot explosives from the Slavic mankurt to suppress the uprisings."
                      Here I do not agree with you. The Janissaries, then maybe the BB began much later, but during the period of Turkish expansion, there was absolutely nothing. Meet the requirements.))) Minuses are not mine.
                    4. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 16 January 2016 22: 23 New
                      0
                      It depends on what the requirements were ... They were all the same
  • Nagaibak
    Nagaibak 12 January 2016 15: 06 New
    0
    Sveles "Cossack lava - a special formation of cavalry assumed the use of PIKI, checkers and carbine. Cossack regulations were prescribed up to WW1."
    Not for argument ... but in addition. As far as I know, lava was prescribed not only to Cossacks, but to all regular cavalrymen. 2. Cossack troops did not foresee their use in frontal attacks on the regulars of Western countries. They don’t have the horses. Therefore, in the battle of Yaroslavice, our fought with peaks and sabers and dragoons, ulans, hussars. Cossacks were sent to knock out infantry. But to let their weakened and demoralized fleeing cavalry to let them in is another matter.
    Kersnovsky quotes the following as cavalry attacks on enemy positions not on their cavalry.
    "She carried out up to 400 attacks in cavalry, in which 170 guns were captured, the whole enemy army was defeated (the VII Austro-Hungarian Army on April 27-28, 1915 at Gorodenka and Rzhaventsev), our own armies were saved twice (1st Neradovs on July 3, 1915 and the 11th at Niva Zlochevskaya on June 19, 1916) Let us remember how the 12th Cavalry Division of the 8th Army at Ruda helped, what great strategic importance for the entire Northern Front was the attack of the Nizhny Novgorod dragoons at Kolyushki, how All the Austro-German armies were shocked by the swoop of the Orenburg Cossacks near Koshev and the "Wild" division near Yezeryan. And how many times our infantry divisions and corps were rescued by selfless attacks that were not afraid of anything and swept away hundreds and squadrons ... "
    It may not be the topic, but I agree with Sveles that the machine guns in our 1st world cavalry were not particularly stopped. Attacked mainly with success with small losses.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 12 January 2016 17: 05 New
      0
      I remember that in the reports of military operations from the Eastern Front in 1914, against the armies of Samsonov and Rennenkampf, the German cavalry appeared very often and in large numbers. The same Germans paid great attention to the cavalry, at least in 1914-1915. A "pick dispute" is a dispute about nothing. The use of cavalry (even with pikes, even without) in WW1 gave an undeniable advantage, subject to the suppression of outright idiocy, such as the assault on fortified areas. With all the amazing progress of small arms of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, they somehow forgot that the Civil War in Russia was won by a horseman with a saber bald and a rifle (carbine) over his shoulder. The same result in relation to various invaders - the Reds kicked them out of Russia, one and all. By the way, here a few posts above the "anti-cavalry" thesis about the hypothetical attack by the Cossacks of the fortifications on the Somme sounded. So it's about nothing. If the Germans had "Cossacks", all "defensive lines" would have been bypassed, especially taking into account the throw through Belgium, and the "German Cossacks" would have burst into Paris in September 1914.
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 12 January 2016 14: 46 New
    +2
    Here is an interesting video on the theme of armor and weapons of the Middle Ages of Russia and Europe.

  • moskowit
    moskowit 12 January 2016 19: 09 New
    +1
    Thanks! Excellent article! Enchanting! The author mentioned the Ordinance companies. The units are very interesting in their configuration. I read about them in more detail, like in "Zeichhaus" ...
  • xan
    xan 12 January 2016 20: 33 New
    +1
    Quote: Good cat
    A good article, I was surprised when I saw that the author is a woman.

    He gives the lyrics. The main force of any medieval army is the infantry. And in those days, the best infantry were not Landsknechts, but Spanish. The horseman needs to jump to the enemy and, using a short-barreled pistol on a moving horse, aim the gun at the enemy. And if the enemy is a foot soldier who is standing and quietly aiming from a much more long-range weapon, and even protected by a pikeman? For a treasury, a pikeer and an arquebusier are cheaper than a trooper shielded in armor on a trained horse. The Spaniards were considered the best troops in Europe for 150 years, from 1500 until the Battle of Rocroix, where the French were fortunate enough to be in the majority due to the inconsistency of the Spanish generals.
    Cavalry is good at chasing, reconnaissance, and attacking frustrated infantry. But all the same, victories are gained by infantry, with the support of artillery and cavalry. While the infantry is fighting, the battle is not lost.
  • tasha
    tasha 12 January 2016 07: 25 New
    +9
    However, over time, the pistols were abandoned. Why? Yes, simply because they all also wore heavy armor, and it was too expensive to pay for their invincibility

    The transition to mass recruiting armies and the saturation of the infantry with firearms is the reason for the abandonment of heavily armored cavalry. The musket salvo put an end to the legends about the invincibility of the "black horsemen".
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 12 January 2016 08: 01 New
      +1
      Karakol hussars remained pistols even after Napoleonic times. Cuirassiers fought in World War I.
      1. tasha
        tasha 12 January 2016 08: 25 New
        +4
        Of course.
        As a tactical technique, the karakol exists in some form even now (for example, a tank "carousel"). As for the cuirassiers, Svetlana writes:
        Under these conditions, the cuirassier cavalry turned out to be “more universal,” because it survived, but a little more specialized, but incomparably more expensive pistols sunk into oblivion.


        At all times, inquisitive military minds were looking for a "kladenets sword" that would allow "seven beats in one fell swoop." Some even managed to gain a temporary advantage through new tactical or technical solutions. But as time went on, other inquisitive minds found, like this ... a suitable "screw with reverse thread". Here's something to keep in mind. There is always the temptation to build a "universal problem solver" and bigger or bigger ones. Then you turn it on - it doesn't work, and the money is spent.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 12 January 2016 10: 55 New
          +1
          In the quote you cited, only the moment about the cost of the reiter compared to the cost of cuirassier is incorrect. Cuirassiers have always been more expensive than reytar. And significantly.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 24 New
          -1
          Pistoliers are hussars - they didn’t sink anywhere then.

          everything can be worse in battle than losing money
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 10: 53 New
        0
        They fought. But they didn’t decide anything. The percentage of such units has been steadily and strongly reduced.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 27 New
          -2
          In 1914, the cuirassiers on the Western Front have not yet annihilated with each other and decided completely. Further, the cavalry became almost the entire dragoon and continued to decide on the Eastern Front.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 48 New
            +2
            They did not solve anything there except private tasks. There is not a single general battle of the WWI (on the scale of the front) in which the cuirassiers would perceptibly light up. Not to mention the decisive role. Everywhere infantry, artillery, machine guns.
            Unlike the Middle Ages.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 January 2016 15: 02 New
              -2
              Google about cavalry on the Western Front at the very beginning of the 1914 war.
              The East German campaign of 1915 has already been written here.
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 12 January 2016 15: 29 New
                +3
                You are very persistent in a one-sided vision of what is convenient for you.
                I did not claim that cavalry was not used in WWI. But the cavalry did not solve a single general battle. Cuirassiers in particular.
                Read what is meant by "general battle". For WWI, these are level battles: the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Verdun, the Brusilov Breakthrough, and so on. In all of these, the cavalry took part in one way or another. But it was not a decisive force. What are you stubbornly promoting in your thesis about the undeniable effectiveness of cavalry up to WWI.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 12 January 2016 17: 39 New
                  -1
                  No, I just know the subject.

                  In the Polish Campaign of 1915, German cavalry was a decisive force. And in the border battle of 1914, the French cuirassiers and the German resolved each other.

                  Then the cavalry was a decisive force on both sides in the Soviet-Polish War of 1919-1920. Then from the Soviet side in the battle of Moscow 1941.
            2. Nagaibak
              Nagaibak 12 January 2016 16: 16 New
              +1
              abrakadabre "Infantry, artillery, machine guns are everywhere.
              Unlike the Middle Ages. "
              That's right ... everything is always infantry. After the Swiss infantry put an end to the domination of the knights i.e. heavy cavalry on the battlefield. From the year 1315 of the Battle of Morgarten, infantry began to become the main force on the battlefield.
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 13 January 2016 11: 41 New
                0
                Well, she did not climb these peaks, but began firing infantry from pistols ... And when it is necessary to attack the cavalry, how will her infantry catch?
                Only knights musketeers and quick-firing muzzle-loading guns were canceled, because armor capable of withstanding their bullets and buckshot at a distance of their pistol fire became too expensive. Moreover, not only the rider was booked, but also his horse.
    2. Riv
      Riv 12 January 2016 13: 12 New
      +3
      The cavalry refused by no means from pistol tactics because of the high cost of armor. In the competition of armor and bullet, the bullet definitely won and the strength of the armor could no longer ensure survival on the battlefield. The thing is different. It quickly became clear that a dense system of infantry armed with monotonous firearms could produce a much higher density of fire than any pistol guns. Almost immediately, tricks appeared such as shooting with plutongs, which made it possible to organize continuous fire. There was only one step left to linear tactics.

      After this, a frontal attack in the horse ranks against the musketeers became a campaign for death. However, the maneuver of course remained with the cavalry. Using the terrain, it was possible to get close, strike from an ambush, etc. .. But here heavy armor only interfered. Of these, a cuirass and a helmet remained, and their strength even increased due to new forging technologies.

      Yes, for example:
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 00 New
        +2
        Let's just say that the armor did not interfere, but didn’t add anything much, except for the prohibitive cost. So it makes no sense in them.
        In addition, low-quality relatively cheap armor often also had an unpleasant property: at some distances the front plate of the cuirass was pierced by a musket bullet, after which the weakened bullet ricocheted from the back plate and crumbled the body again along a new path. This greatly enhanced the damaging effect. And if an armless wounded man, with some luck, had a chance to survive and recover, then such a latnik survived much less often.
        Dressing everyone in bulletproof armor was prohibitively expensive. And still, it did not lead to the expected decrease in the lesion.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 14: 30 New
          -1
          Is it nothing that the helmet in the form of a helmet remained even with any infantryman? lol
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 52 New
            +3
            A helmet is not armor. This is a helmet. That is just a separate security element. Armor is a complex.
            With your example of reasoning, we can reach unprecedented logical chains.
            To call a helmet a suit of armor is like a buckle of an army belt cuirass. From a blow with a sharp object to the navel, it will protect no worse than cuirasses. So cuirass.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 12 January 2016 15: 03 New
              -2
              A helmet is part of the armor.

              She (helmet) you just with a visor laughing
  • parusnik
    parusnik 12 January 2016 08: 17 New
    +2
    And only Philip III indicated the abolition of spears in the early years of the XNUMXth century.
    ... When Holland was already lost ... The son and successor of Philip II, the first of the incapable kings who brought Spain to extreme internal decline and external political impotence. Inert and superstitious, Philip surrounded himself with mediocre ministers who thought only of their enrichment at the expense of the treasury and the people.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 12 January 2016 15: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: parusnik
      surrounded himself with mediocre ministers who thought only of their enrichment at the expense of the treasury and the people.

      Something familiar ... How do I know this ?? smile
  • tasha
    tasha 12 January 2016 09: 49 New
    +3
    I will add two figures in addition to the article
    1. Black reytar
  • tasha
    tasha 12 January 2016 09: 50 New
    +6
    "Battle of Nördlingen". Bavaria. September 6, 1634
    author Mikel Olazábal
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 12 January 2016 10: 02 New
    +1
    Good article, a well-deserved plus for the author. The Europeans did not manage to master the manufacture of such a technically complex product as onions. And if so, many years of training for shooting from a horse were simply not available to them. In general, the Europeans declared the archery "ignoble" and thus got out of the situation for themselves.
    But I still wanted to shoot from a horse, since any skirmish with the Russian "barbarians" showed that this was a necessary business. Not having mastered woodworking, the Europeans advanced in metallurgy and blacksmithing, so they managed to create a palliative - these very pistols. Not archers, of course. The stock of shots is very limited, the range is ridiculous, there is no accuracy ... but it is cheap and fast. What to teach a pistol? Karakol, and loading. It is still pointless to aim from these slogans, wherever it gets, it gets there.
    In general, all the same story, a truly winning weapon - cheap, massive, easy to learn, undemanding neither for service nor for qualification of a fighter.
    1. kalibr
      12 January 2016 10: 15 New
      +1
      Without mastering the woodworking ... Well, where does this come from? Again, metal bows would be made then, like the Indians. Nothing prevented! But it is precisely that the bow was a base weapon for a knight. Therefore, they simply endured archers as they endured florists, as they endured the first shooters of firearms.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 12 January 2016 10: 55 New
        +2
        The bow is the most effective weapon of antiquity. To admit not even a millisecond that the knights abandoned him out of "nobility" ... but there are simply no words! This bloody gang, murderers, thieves, robbers and rapists, incredible abominations that these people did, literally overwhelm the historical chronicle. And all the same, propaganda has hammered "chivalry" into the head. Contrary to every mind, every logic, every everyday consideration, even! Plague...
        Turkish sultans studied the manufacture of bows as an art of great benefit and nobility. Making onions required an extremely high technological culture, which was simply impossible in what was then Europe. In addition, there is a technical detail - it is necessary to withstand the material, that is, a good tree, at least five to seven years in special conditions for proper drying. Where in Europe was there a place where the archer could stand his boards for so long that they won’t conquer, burn, destroy?
        However, to whom am I explaining this? To the adherent of the idea of ​​"nobility" of European knights belay Yearning...
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 42 New
          +1
          First of all, in Europe there was no social and economic environment for many years of training for the very large (if necessary) bow cavalry.
          1. AK64
            AK64 13 January 2016 03: 07 New
            0
            First of all, in Europe there was no social and economic environment for many years of training for the very large (if necessary) bow cavalry.

            I will add to what has been said that, say in France, the "noble" simply did not want their peyzans to have weapons (even as trivial as a bow) and knew how to use them: that way, they will shoot in their direction! Hence all the prohibitions on crossbows.

            Well, what was this "noble" rabble ... After all, they were losing battle after battle to the British because they did not want to obey the slightest discipline at all! Each of this "noble" bastards personally imagined himself only slightly lower than the king, and did not want to carry out any orders.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 13 January 2016 07: 35 New
              0
              The French knights had normal morale. Therefore, they red-haired and crawled. The English archers began to break through their armor only because the strong Russian small korchugs of double weaving from forged wire were demolished and there were nowhere to buy new ones because Russia was ravaged by the Mongols.

              When, in between minnets, a Parisian degenerate mob who drank wine and blood took Bastille by killing her one-legged commandant, four soldiers and freeing six criminals, then she ravaged Saint-Denis and they took out the holy relics of the French kings from the cathedral, they wallowed them in the mud and stoked them in shit. And then they went and did with the peasant Vendée what the Tukhachevskys did.
              1. AK64
                AK64 13 January 2016 09: 44 New
                +2
                Maybe you should stop writing at all? Well, not publicly argue with your ideas about history, not with yours ...

                If for you the "morality" of the French titled scum is the "norm", then it only characterizes you. (I understand that you associate yourself with the French nobility? I'm afraid this is nothing more than fantasy ...)
                If you do not know that during the Hundred Years War there were French on both sides, and that the dispute was only dynastic, then this again will characterize you. "Beautiful France", that is, a change in the motives of the war - this is the very end of the war. And before that, before Jeanne, two French heirs divided the inheritance - and nothing more.

                The rest is your nonsense (forgive me my bluntness, but this is precisely the nonsense of a teenager playing with fantasies), even commenting ... is simply disgusting.

                Stop writing, obey good advice
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 13 January 2016 11: 57 New
                  0
                  Maybe you better stop advising?

                  at the expense of "scum" how can you confirm your words? because from the scum of the relics as in Saint-Denis does not remain.

                  Fuck off the "revolutionary", in a hundred-year-old England fought with France, and in order to deflate the enemy, they sometimes arrange a civil war. Spain as a state developed much later. If there were any "dynastic scum" it was in the massacre of clans in Scotland.
                  But for some reason, they are all without ruses and in pioneer ties all heroes. wassat
        2. kalibr
          12 January 2016 12: 48 New
          +2
          Imagine Michael that my thesis is correct, but yours is not. Well, firstly, you are not a historian, and secondly, you do not own the subject and the source base. And I have a lot of articles on this topic in refereed scientific journals and several monographs. Here will be an article about this and very detailed. If you can’t wait to find out before this article, here is a link to a book with links to sources - The History of Knight's Arms. 2013 Publishing House Lomonosov.
          The point here, by the way, was entirely in the nobility of the knights, by no means, but everything is not as narrow-minded as you look.
          Quote: Mikhail3

          Where in Europe was there a place where the archer could stand his boards for so long that they won’t conquer, burn, destroy?
          Yes, anywhere! There, where did crossbows, armor ... what problems? You just don’t know the history of the Middle Ages, my dear!
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 37 New
        +4
        Onion is not a problem. The problem is to educate / train the archer. Do not forget about the rigid estate system and the cost of a horse in medieval Europe.

        Where to get the foot archer is clear. Where will he "dissolve" after the end of the war too. But where will he come from and how he will live in the interwar period, a trained horse archer. And not just an archer who moves on horseback to the battlefield, but who knows how to fight on horseback and with a bow. From what social environment will such a miracle hatch in Europe?

        Common folk are quite accessible bow, but a horse is not available. The horse is accessible to the nobility, but to fight like a coward in the distance instead of a heroic battle on spears or with a sword ... Feeee!

        In addition, there are many, many horseback archers. Otherwise, Mongolian (and indeed Eastern) tactics of a carousel with continuous shelling is impossible. What density of fire can create a detachment of 400-600 horse archers moving in a circle? Relatively none for plate infantry. At each moment in time, no more than a quarter will shoot at the enemy. At the same time there is no firing in one gulp. And the shooting is smeared along the front. Thousands are needed for efficiency.
        The same 400-600 archers, only on foot, in tight formation, and when salvo firing at 7-10 times per minute, and hiding behind slingshots, they will mow clearings in the infantry or cavalry of the enemy. And they won’t even have to leave the place. A sufficiently consistent shift in the direction of the volley.
        1. kalibr
          12 January 2016 12: 53 New
          0
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Common folk are quite accessible bow, but a horse is not available. The horse is accessible to the nobility, but to fight like a coward in the distance instead of a heroic battle on spears or with a sword ... Feeee!


          You have very briefly and well written and expressed meaning. I promise there will be a very large article on this subject with very thoroughly examined sources and everything else.
          Taskha got ahead of me: I recommend reading the article by Timothy Newark "Why the bow did not please the knights?" (translation by V. Shpakovsky).

          http://www.pravda.ru/science/useful/02-02-2013/1143090-ritter_luck-0/

          But this will be a new article with pictures!
        2. brn521
          brn521 12 January 2016 13: 16 New
          0
          Quote: abrakadabre
          What density of fire can create a detachment of 400-600 horse archers moving in a circle?

          The trick is that this detachment is able to create this relatively low density of fire not only from the front, but also from the flank or from the rear. Or even before the battle, immediately set off to rob the convoy and camp. In general, rather unpleasant subjects.
          Quote: abrakadabre
          the same 400-600 archers, only on foot, in tight formation, and when salvo firing at 7-10 times per minute, and hiding behind slingshots, they will mow clearings in the enemy infantry or cavalry.

          This is at first, while there are no decent armor and artillery. And then the complexity of learning and the lack of mobility will do the trick. However, progress did not spare Koneluki. On the example of the same Kazakhs and Uzbeks, those at the first opportunity acquired armor and pikes, and then a firearm, including to drive the same koneluk.
          Quote: abrakadabre
          But where does the trained equestrian archer come from.

          It can take easily. For example, be the sedentary population from which the tribute is collected, less complaisant. Suppose the peasants have no funds for a full-fledged weapon, and artillery has not yet been invented. But the peaks are cheap, and the axes and flails do pretty well with armor. Plus, the numerical superiority is more than 100 to 1. In such cases, there would be nothing left to oppose them, except for a combination of mobility and distance damage.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 12 January 2016 14: 21 New
            +5
            Without serious training, such an armed crowd in combat value tends to zero. What in the Middle Ages was proven many hundreds of times.
            If you think that the city militias of Flanders or all kinds of Hussites there smashed the knights, picking up weapons for the first time in your life, then you are very mistaken.
            Both of them included well-coordinated and trained foot soldiers from guild organizations and unemployed soldiers. And the most serious attention was paid to regular group training.

            What the attempt to arm (and not bad at all) the unprepared crowd and lead it against the knight’s army leads to is very well-known in this sense, the battle of Vizby. Where the Danish professional army, almost without loss for themselves, cut the large militia of such warriors from the plow.

            Another illustration: during the time of Jacquerie (France, the era of the Hundred Years War), some knight fell under the kneading of the rebellious peasants, was knocked off his horse and beaten by a dragole with a whole crowd in order to kill his carcass. With zero result. Despite the rather long execution time. Until he was recaptured by his comrade in arms. Most likely the knight sluggishly fought back dumbfounded by the fall. But he came out of the alteration unscathed.

            As a person who wore armor and received a helmet, albeit blunt, but with a good swing with an ax, I will say - this is quite real. Good armor allows you to completely ignore 9 out of 10 hits raining down on you. Moreover, if an unarmed enemy is against you, then almost every swing of your weapon will mean "minus one opponent". Moreover, for a professional military man who trains and eats normally all his life. In contrast to the chronically starving peasants from birth.

            As for easily in the acquisition of large masses of horse archers. In Europe, there was no corresponding scale of horse breeding and the number of cattle breeders who would train their skills in the course of their life in the course of their normal economic life. Sufficient quantities of both were in the steppe. The scale of horse breeding that existed in Europe in the Middle Ages, just covered the needs of knights. At the same time, the shepherds, neither in quantity nor in prosperity, had the opportunity to grow up to the Tyumen 'steppes.
            1. brn521
              brn521 12 January 2016 20: 14 New
              0
              Quote: abrakadabre
              If you think that the city militias of Flanders or all kinds of Hussites there smashed the knights,

              It's pretty late now. The people in bulk, the metal is breaking through. Koneluks need to appear earlier. What is special about these horses. With a minimum of equipment and a minimum number, they can terrorize the population over a large area. Those. this is what we conditionally get the invaders who began to "protect" the population. Armor and pikes will be needed when you have to drive other horses. As a result, we will get the core of the army from traditional horse-drawn station wagons, and more cheaper and worse-armed horsebirds. It seems like a pretty decent mixture, capable of delivering very serious problems to the knightly armies of the early Middle Ages, or at least dropping the economy of a potential enemy to zero as many times as necessary.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              In Europe, there was no corresponding scale for horse breeding and number of cattle breeders.

              Of course, the point is not to certainly create an army of several tumens, or whatever it is. It's about comparing the capabilities of an archer rider and an ordinary rider. It is not clear why as a result there are only the latter, and the first as if there were none.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              As a man who wore armor and got a helmet with a dumb ax, but with a good swing, I’ll say that it’s quite realistic.

              A carpenter’s ax with a 1,5 meter handle is very robust with various buckets and car doors. True blows of such force that the blade begins to exfoliate.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              some knight was kneaded by the rebellious peasants, was knocked off his horse and beat up with a whole crowd of dracoli in order to kill his carcass

              Apparently confused and only interfered with each other. Press it to the ground, and drive a knife or something like that into the eye socket, if such tricked out armor.
              Quote: abrakadabre
              almost every swing of your weapon will mean "minus one opponent"

              Total 1-2 swings and all. The hand will be locked and overturned. We get the exchange of 1 knight for 2 peasants. Koneluk’s exchange is better, only arrows end at him, there exchange of arrows will go to the peasants. However, if you pick it, then you probably should dig in the direction of the samurai. Also kind of like Koneluki. And local initial conditions are relatively similar to European ones. The terrain is rough, few horses.
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 12 January 2016 20: 54 New
                +2
                Sheer amateurism, coupled with a reluctance to turn to historical materials ... Sheer alternativeism: what would happen if ... Oh, it's militant amateurism ...

                No one will put tin buckets on the head in battle. Everything is harsher there, much harsher. The thickness of the helmet dome on my profile picture is 2 mm ... steel, not 0.5-0.7 mm of soft iron, like on a bucket. In places there is an overlap of 2 layers of metal - already 4 mm. Domes of some museum exhibits in one layer in places reach 4 mm. 1.5-2 mm steel on a shock-absorbing lining and on a moving person manually impenetrable practically nothing. With the exception of klebts on a long handle and a successful hit with a very good swing. Verified by field experiments.

                About exchanging 1 knight for 2 peasants ... How sad everything is with you ... You are so brave at the computer. I’ll see how you rush into battle in rags on your naked body and with a slap against a knight in iron, with a sharp iron in your hands, trained to kill all your life. Which, for 1-2 of its blows, leaves a dismembered or dying cripple. Who doesn’t give a damn about the blow of your club and to knock you out does not have to specifically aim at you with a sword. It is enough to smash it with the iron glove, the guard of the sword or the edge of the shield on the reverse movement from hitting another enemy ...
                All bold at the computer in their fantasies.
                1. brn521
                  brn521 13 January 2016 16: 11 New
                  0
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  Sheer amateurism, coupled with a reluctance to turn to historical materials ... Sheer alternativeism: what would happen if ...

                  And what can you do, I'm not a historian. In our natural sciences, how. If a person cannot answer the question "what would happen if ...", then he does not understand the subject.
                2. brn521
                  brn521 13 January 2016 16: 59 New
                  0
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  1.5-2 mm steel on a shock-absorbing lining and on a moving person manually impenetrable practically nothing.

                  Put this man on the ground, they will make their way. We initially spoke about the knight whom the peasants threw out of the saddle.
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  I’ll see how you will rush into battle in rags on your naked body and with a dresco against a knight in iron, with a sharp iron in your hands,

                  I have some experience with this same drekol, if it is held by a sufficient number of people. A slingshot on a pole can block a limb or knock over. The hook perfectly clings to the legs. In our forest, it all grows just like that, just look. What’s there, you can put a pole between your feet behind you so that you won’t notice, take a step in one direction or another and you will certainly tip over. Therefore, I am on the poles and pole arms in general, quite a high opinion. Well, I can chop off one piece of wood to one person (which by the way is not easy, except that a razor is overgrown as a weapon). And the remaining three or five will stand in line and calmly watch? Overturned and immobilized.
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  Which, for 1-2 of its blows, leaves a dismembered or dying cripple.

                  This is in a military battle, where there is nowhere to turn. Nobody will be specially substituted for such a war. They will stick the sticks, let them chop, while it still can, it’s not a pity. The indicated knight, by the way, did not get up. Who would let him?
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  The thickness of the helmet dome on my profile picture is 2 mm ... steel, not 0.5-0.7 mm of soft iron, like on a bucket.

                  So that's great. When they fill up, they will not kill, so they will lose their vision if they get a short knife. This is if in a hurry. And then they may decide not to dirty their armor and clothes, which will be useful to them later.
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  All bold at the computer in their fantasies.

                  I do not argue. But those peasants turned out to be brave; they overwhelmed the whole knight. And the fact that they could not immediately kill, so apparently emotions and lack of experience. Each person personally tried to inflict damage on the knight, so I guess they pushed like boobies and armor how much they scratched in vain. To train them a little, single knights would begin to calm them down without any problems, a suitable tree for a docolic would be enough. A solo warrior against four to five in close combat is not even a dead man. Captive. Knights are dangerous in quantity. Without their troops or at least comrades, this is not war, but alive for some robbers. Here Koneluk - is another matter. Only an ambush against him.
              2. AK64
                AK64 13 January 2016 13: 39 New
                0
                What is special about these horses. With a minimum of equipment and a minimum number, they can terrorize the population over a large area. Those. this is what we conditionally get the invaders who began to "protect" the population.

                We need a trifle: a lot of the end, many people who know how to ride them, and many people who have mastered the bow. One archer is nothing: the number of arrows per square meter is important. This is especially so given the accuracy of the bow in general, and the accuracy of a shot from the saddle in particular.

                Well, where can all this be seen in Europe?

                I looked at what you write further: you are a dreamer, that's what.
        3. Scraptor
          Scraptor 12 January 2016 18: 24 New
          +1
          The size of a large English bow, which in strength and range was also inferior to the Mongolian one at times, did not allow shooting from the saddle.
          The Mongolian bow could sometimes be captured as a trophy in battle, but specific care was required for it, otherwise it would quickly become unusable. During their production, glue was used and elastic moisture-proof varnish of special composition made from beetles, the tendons and bones of animals were processed in the appropriate way, and there was the least amount of wood from the material.
          English was just a piece of wood cut in the right place and in the right way.
          It took more than a year, or even three, to make a good onion. The one who gave the steppe masters this technology demanded no further transfer it.
          The steppe archers shot foot archers from a safe distance as well as other European soldiers, and they beat them holding several arrows in their teeth and hand more often than the "English medieval machine gun". Before the battle, everyone had to have at least 20 arrows in their quiver, otherwise they would chop off their head. With them, he killed at least 4-5 infantrymen, he himself usually remained intact. If only Ilya Muromets with some friends did not get in the way and did not shoot, jumped and threw a mace even better.
      3. AK64
        AK64 13 January 2016 03: 00 New
        -2
        Again, metal bows would be made then, like the Indians. Nothing prevented!

        Elastic steel in any mass quantities ?? Oh well...
        / shakes his head /
        But it is precisely that the bow was a base weapon for a knight. Therefore, the archers simply suffered

        These "noble" from the "nobility" and lost the English peyzanes battle after battle. And all from "nobility", only from him
    2. tasha
      tasha 12 January 2016 10: 40 New
      0
      I recommend reading the article by Timothy Newark "Why the knights did not like the bow?" (translation by V. Shpakovsky).

      http://www.pravda.ru/science/useful/02-02-2013/1143090-ritter_luck-0/

      fellow
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 12 January 2016 11: 07 New
        +1
        I read. The same unsubstantiated and bombastic claims about "honor." Rob, rape, burn living people, drown, release guts, etc. and so on, to create hell on earth is all quite blissful. And to shoot from a bow - no! Do you yourself feel the absurdity behind these words? There are no commandments, notions and restrictions, no matter what chivalry violates, tramples, neglects. Moreover, all this was done with the utmost cynicism, as a rule with laughter, and after that the sophists found the most bizarre excuses!
        If chivalry did not use bows, then for a simple reason - it could not. Purchased onions from distant lands was unrealistically expensive, beyond the strength of this gang of scum. Too often they have gutted their own and others' possessions to collect real wealth there. Take trophies? And almost useless. Learning to shoot from a bow needs many years, that is, you need to start with a children's bow, and under the guidance of a good mentor.
        A clumsy English yew stick is unsuitable for shooting from a horse, and there were no own training bows. The warrior had to start from five to seven years old, and change four pieces of pieces in order to grow into an archer of the proper level, like a fighter of our forged rati. Unreal.
        What else was left for this gang of scoundrels? Only to declare inaccessible to them "ignoble".
        1. tasha
          tasha 12 January 2016 11: 40 New
          +3
          Michael3, we are talking about different things, in my opinion.

          That archers, that arbalester in the armies of medieval Europe were present, and in large quantities. By the end of the Hundred Years War, the ratio of archer / latnik in the English army reached 9: 1. But they were all on foot (in extreme cases, they used the horse as a means of transportation). The art of archery was at a very high level.

          Why didn’t horse shooting develop massively? I think the point here is the sedentary lifestyle and the way the army is organized. The peasants did not have the opportunity to rush astride Europe and shoot at all from the bow. Once, nothing and nowhere.

          As for the knights-lords, they devoted more time to close combat with swords and ram blow with a spear.

          PS Here with abrakadabre we are about the same thing. hi
          1. kalibr
            12 January 2016 12: 56 New
            0
            Yes, you are about the same thing, and for some reason, everyone correctly understands both. Perhaps you know how to think, analyze, compare ... I think so ...
            1. abrakadabre
              abrakadabre 12 January 2016 13: 08 New
              +2
              Just because considering a specific type of warrior in any region is pointless in isolation from a comprehensive assessment of the conditions that led to its emergence and existence.
              This is already akin to the famous spherical horse in a vacuum.
        2. kalibr
          12 January 2016 12: 55 New
          0
          You are not in a hurry to blame everyone, right? The Bible has a log and a straw. Wait, moderate ardor. I can’t comment on the history of the Middle Ages in the comments.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 44 New
        +1
        At the same time, any knight, as a professional military man, wielding any available weapons, including a good archery. What there is a huge number of evidence.
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 12 January 2016 11: 01 New
    +1
    Polish (and not only Polish) hussars, like cavalry oriented to close combat, survived longer in Eastern Europe and in Russia (the same Cossacks fought in the Second World War) due to the vast expanses that required mobility, inaccessible to infantry.
    1. Aitvaras
      Aitvaras 12 January 2016 12: 54 New
      0
      The Polish hussars successfully showed themselves in the battle of Orsha, in 1514 they then, together with the troops of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, under the command of Prince Konstantin Ostrog, defeated the army of Moscow Tsar Vasily III.
      In the battle of Salaspils, in 1605, against the Kingdom of Sweden, 14 Swedes were defeated while in the minority. Also in the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, under the command of Hetman Chodkevičius. Then the square of the Swedish infantry could not resist the hussars.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 13: 16 New
        +2
        So what? In Central Asia in the 19th century, a company of Cossacks withstood a three-day battle with more than ten thousand horse-drawn cavalry rebels, either Kokand, or Khiva, or Bukhara. Lost two-thirds of its composition, organizedly retreated, but fought back and carried out the wounded and the material part.
        We here are not going to measure pipisky. And to do an analysis of the phenomenon in the complex.
        The Greeks, too, at Thermopylae have glorified themselves for centuries in the overwhelming minority. And such examples from different nations abound.
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 12 January 2016 11: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Mikhail3

    In general, all the same story, a truly winning weapon - cheap, massive, easy to learn, undemanding neither for service nor for qualification of a fighter.

    That's how it is, but 9 kg is somehow too simple ...
  • Riv
    Riv 12 January 2016 13: 00 New
    +2
    At the beginning of the article, the picture, which if my memory serves me right, is called "The last third". In the Battle of Rocroix, to which it is dedicated (and the Spaniards are depicted on it), victory was achieved by good interaction of the arms of the French troops, and not by the superiority of their weapons. In fact, the Spanish thirds and similar formations were used in battle for a long time, finally falling out of use only with the introduction of linear tactics.
    In general, the Spaniards in that battle showed themselves from the very best side. They stayed, covering the withdrawal, with a clear advantage of the enemy. So the author chose the screen saver not too well.
    1. AK64
      AK64 13 January 2016 14: 19 New
      -1
      So the author chose the screen saver not too well.


      She didn’t choose the screen saver unsuccessfully — she chose the topic unsuccessfully: she would write better about what she understands.

      Well, about this particular battle of Rocroix, the deep IMHO - the reason for the defeat of the Spaniards there - is Beck's direct betrayal. DeMelo planned the battle taking into account Beck's division, and according to his plan, the French would have been defeated. But Beck ... just didn't come. And he didn’t even go. More precisely, he went and went, but already in the morning, having slept. and kind of leisurely - so as not to be in time anywhere.
    2. AK64
      AK64 13 January 2016 14: 19 New
      0
      So the author chose the screen saver not too well.


      She didn’t choose the screen saver unsuccessfully — she chose the topic unsuccessfully: she would write better about what she understands.

      Well, about this particular battle of Rocroix, the deep IMHO - the reason for the defeat of the Spaniards there - is Beck's direct betrayal. DeMelo planned the battle taking into account Beck's division, and according to his plan, the French would have been defeated. But Beck ... just didn't come. And he didn’t even go. More precisely, he went and went, but already in the morning, having slept. and kind of leisurely - so as not to be in time anywhere.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 12 January 2016 13: 46 New
    +3
    Quote: kalibr
    I recommend reading the article by Timothy Newark "Why the knights did not like the bow?" (translation by V. Shpakovsky).

    To be honest, the arguments in this article are ridiculous: honor, dignity ... Yes, in any war now and thousands of years ago, all these concepts were "laid down" from a high bell tower. If you are a NORMAL person, then first of all you want to survive. And if the bow were applicable for knightly combat, then it would be gladly adopted. Another point, how could a heavily armored and relatively weakly agile knight constantly shoot a bow? To fire a few shots from a pre-loaded and relatively compact pistol - yes, but constantly pulling a long arrow out of the quiver, pulling the bowstring, spinning "like a top" in the saddle - no. The composition of the equipment (armor first of all) imposed restrictions and determined the weapons that the knights could use and the bow did not suit them.
    1. brn521
      brn521 12 January 2016 15: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      To be honest, the arguments in this article are ridiculous: honor, dignity ...

      And what arguments are given now against the use of bacteriological, chemical and nuclear weapons? Also funny.
      Quote: DesToeR
      If you are a NORMAL person, then you first of all want to survive ...

      Therefore, you have to build relationships. Do not annoy in vain the neighbors, the king, the Pope in the end. It is necessary to observe a measure - you break unwritten codes, balance. They will start to look askance, they will ruin the trade in duties, they will begin to creep on your lands in the first place, your villages are going to burn, you must conclude alliances with your enemies ... In general, you must either be strong and do not care about your neighbors. Or, gradually introduce changes without breaking away from the environment.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Another moment, how could a heavily booked and relatively weakly agile knight constantly shoot from a bow?

      Well, look. For example, as in the east - who is richer - those in the heavy, who are more victorious - in koneluki.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 15: 35 New
        +1
        Moreover, all the strands in the east had a full bow set. Even if they used it less often.
      2. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 12 January 2016 21: 13 New
        0
        Quote: brn521
        And what arguments are given now against the use of bacteriological, chemical and nuclear weapons? Also funny.

        And it does not matter what arguments are against - it is important that "just in case" and "in secret" all of this has long been there.
    2. kalibr
      12 January 2016 17: 41 New
      +2
      The arguments there are just very serious. And the author and the translator found only 4 images of knights shooting from a horse (and then one is in doubt that this is a knight!). In total there are 4 miniatures for THOUSANDS of miniatures from medieval manuscripts. We looked through the collections of the British Library, the National Library of Paris, castles on the Loire ... However, a lot has been digitized - you can see it for yourself, including the chronicles of Saint Denis, and there is no one there, despite the fact that there are a lot of archers and crossbowmen. But these four images are not an indicator either. Two can be interpreted as satire (medieval "Crocodile"), one is mystic and only one is reliable as a 100% source, but it is clearly not a knight ... All effigies and braces depicting knights do not depict them with a bow, there are no bas-reliefs, reliefs , statues where the knight would be with a bow !!!
      Maurice Druon says well about the attitude towards archery. In general, his series of novels "Damned Kings" is almost a history textbook, well, but he was the Minister of Culture of France.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 12 January 2016 19: 09 New
        +1
        But because there was no point in the equestrian crossbowman.
        What is the advantage of a crossbow:
        - high power and lethal force;
        - undemanding to long and serious shooter training;
        - the ability to long and accurately heal.

        What are its disadvantages:
        - extremely low rate of fire;
        - bulkiness.

        Hence, what are the benefits of trying to use a mounted crossbow? Yes, no. High power is completely offset by the inability to make an aimed shot at a gallop. Low rate of fire is only exacerbated by horseback. The inability to make a massive frequent volley does not make it possible to use such warriors for massive shelling over squares. The bulkiness of the armor-piercing crossbow will not allow normal hand-to-hand fighting. At the same time, the specifics of equestrian combat require the highest training and full reservation on a par with the knight of both the fighter and his horse. That is the highest cost with absolutely ridiculous effectiveness. Europeans tried to experiment in this direction and came to the logical result - crap.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 12 January 2016 15: 20 New
    +2
    Svetlana, you have a good article. In general, the previous speakers have already spoken out on the topic fairly, I will add on my own, those who wish can watch, in my opinion, one of the best historical films on the theme of Reiters and Pikemen "Captain Alatriste". They also show about the Battle of Rocroix, the grave of the Spanish third.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 12 January 2016 16: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: brn521
    And what arguments are given now against the use of bacteriological, chemical and nuclear weapons? Also funny.

    And where does the statement to real action. No matter how many conventions and moratoriums have been adopted, they will and will use nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological weapons.
    Quote: brn521
    The measure has to be respected - you break unwritten codes, balance

    Containment in use does not work - after all, bows were actively used against the knights themselves. Those. the knights themselves had every right to a symmetrical answer, but they didn’t do it ... Why? The answer is naive to disgrace: they were not allowed honor and dignity. Do not make me laugh.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Moreover, all the strands in the east had a full bow set.

    Having and using a bow as a primary weapon is not the same thing. I can’t imagine how a rider from head to toe in armor jumps and releases 3 quivers of arrows at the enemy ?!
    1. Riv
      Riv 12 January 2016 16: 59 New
      0
      Yes, in general, nothing complicated. Just like with a chariot, or with an elephant. The battle of Panipath guarantees this.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 18: 07 New
      0
      If you can’t imagine it, then this is like your problem, and not the heavily armed steppes of the Middle Ages. There are no options.
      Even the khans enjoyed the bow with pleasure. Both in hunting and in war. That is a completely different cultural tradition than in Europe.
  • Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 12 January 2016 18: 26 New
    +2
    We can only speculate. Any source can be questioned and then you have to rely on common sense and logic .. which sometimes does not help ..) For example, to argue about the possible skill of a medieval swordsman comparing his possible physical conditions with a modern person, which is incorrect. Professional warriors developed other muscles, they had a different psychology, they had a different rhythm and mode of life. Since childhood, they learned to own weapons. And any modern reenactor who considers himself an expert on, for example, sword fighting, was not standing next to the knight.
    Before objecting, read the first sentence ..)
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 21: 36 New
      +2
      However, any modern reenactor (and not a clown dressed up) is much closer to a knight than an amateur from a keyboard, who posts on the Internet himself does not know what and has not even studied the subject closely. The approach to reconstruction (rather than imitation) is very tough and has a normal scientific methodology at its core.
      For example, the official world championship in medieval battles "Battle of the Nations" is never a reconstruction, but a stylization. Moreover, the stylization is very superficial.
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 13 January 2016 12: 36 New
        0
        Don’t say ..) Don’t look where you are, everywhere eHspert ..
  • palm
    palm 12 January 2016 20: 52 New
    +3
    Great popularization of history. More such articles.
    1. AK64
      AK64 12 January 2016 22: 04 New
      -1
      No, thanks
      1. kalibr
        13 January 2016 07: 49 New
        0
        Whoever likes it: whoever is pop, who’s poppy, and who’s daughter-in-law, hell said, took off his underpants and sat down in the nettle!
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 12 January 2016 21: 54 New
    +2
    I re-read the article with deep satisfaction, thank you very much, Svetlana.
    Yes, “there are women in Russian villages!” And also in cities!
    Comments are also very informative!
  • Mr. Pip
    Mr. Pip 12 January 2016 21: 55 New
    +2
    I read the article and comments with pleasure, the topic is unknown to me and I certainly don't understand a lot of things in it - for example, I don't understand why AT ALL a knight should have with him anything other than a sword - he was going to fight with this "something" ?!
    Who were the knights? The majors-gopniks of the Middle Ages, they had a horse-armor-sword because it was EXPENSIVE - and also a "knight's spear" ala a squire in the form of all squires-archers because the knight himself was not going to fight with anyone - the effectiveness of knights on the battlefield it aspired to zero, they were corny about the total number of troops, and in a bad "situation" on the battlefield, the knights simply fled or surrendered, because it was more profitable to take a knight prisoner than to kill.
    So why should a knight need a bow, which he also needs to learn, if 99% of knights fought either in tournaments with their own kind, or chopped off unarmed slaves with a sword - and a bow would not pierce armor, but a slave would be "more prestigious" to cut with an expensive sword? request
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 22: 33 New
      +1
      How to fight with whom with a spear? Just the same with other knights. Because picking an armored opponent with a sword is very sad. Because he is all in iron, actively and very skillfully resists. So it’s more convenient to defeat him with a powerful ramming blow.
      An unarmed serf is generally desirable to just trample a horse. Another sword about him dirty.
      And by the way, the knights were really gopniks. And some are mega-gopniks. But far from major in the modern sense. No pampering and snotty throwing. Justified brutality. Only hardcore.
      1. Mr. Pip
        Mr. Pip 12 January 2016 23: 03 New
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        How to fight with whom with a spear? Just the same with other knights.

        Yes, apparently, trying to write the main idea briefly and abstractly, I forgot to write the word "spear", but the meaning does not change from this - the knights simply did not need to shoot from a bow and on the "engravings" they do not have bows for the same reason that in modern portraits, there are almost no hero pilots and fathers-generals with machine guns - they simply do not need it.
        Quote: abrakadabre
        So it’s more convenient to defeat him with a powerful ramming blow.

        By the way, yes, it was easiest to stun a knight with a "club", and then "sell" him, so the more expensive the armor, the more chances to survive in battle.
        Quote: abrakadabre
        An unarmed serf is generally desirable to just trample a horse.

        And it’s even easier if the "squad" deals with him, especially if the knight is on foot, which also happened very often.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 January 2016 09: 00 New
          0
          The point is that they throw a spear ... And any knight normally got a flail on the head, or pulled off a lasso and his horse stepped on a rake laughing
          Destroy to the long infantry rush resting on the ground it was unpleasant
          But his knight is still better than someone else's knight, and yet there were Moors and Huns.
          ZapEurope did not make contact in the open spaces with steppe horse archers in 1241, it boiled in its regional feudal juice, with its one-sided armament (approximately like Japan), and then it was barely possible to trample the English.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 13 January 2016 10: 40 New
            0
            It is necessary to teach, it is necessary to read! And do not persist in your ignorance.

            1. The battle with the Turks for about two hundred years. Which had a beautiful own bow cavalry and numerous Tatar vassal contingents.
            2. Regular zerg-rashi of the Tatars themselves to Poland and ON.
            3. The regular involvement of the Tatar contingents is already on its side by the same Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania against the Teutonic Order. Which, in turn, gathered mercenaries and just amateurs to fight from all over Western Europe, up to and including Scotland in tangible quantities.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 13 January 2016 11: 34 New
              0
              The Turks were held back in the Balkan valleys of the fortress; they did not have a fully mobile army like the Mongols. In rare cases of outburst, the Poles helped, only who at least had weak stirrup crossbows. ON and the Commonwealth is not a feudal state.
              The Tatars were hired by someone in small numbers. Usually these were rogue clans. Although often it was they who decided the matter.

              Germany with its Rhine micro-locks was a completely flea reserve.

              The Bashkir detachment near Austerlitz did not allow the French to defeat the Russian army simply by firing about 800 arrows at them, which mowed down the advancing detachment and the rest were surprised with "unprecedented weapons."
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 12 January 2016 21: 56 New
    0
    Quote: abrakadabre
    If you can’t imagine it, then this is like your problem, and not the heavily armed steppes of the Middle Ages.

    The main weapons of the "heavily armed steppes of the Middle Ages" were a pike, a sword, a mace, but not a bow. The heavy cavalry, usually consisting of the tribal nobility, was armed with long three-four-meter spears with tips of various types, most often narrow, armor-piercing. The terrible ram of these riders usually brought a fracture during the fight. If the first blow to the spears of the heavy cavalry did not achieve a decisive result, melee weapons were used. The fact that such a warrior had a bow with him does not mean that it was his main weapon, just as the western European knight did not have the main dagger.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Even the khans enjoyed the bow with pleasure.

    This is understandable, but did they fire about 60 arrows at a time in full armor at the enemy?
    Quote: abrakadabre
    That is a completely different cultural tradition than in Europe.

    Tradition is tradition, but physiology cannot be removed anywhere. Light cavalry, without armor or equipped with light armor - these are the main "users" of the bow in the Golden Horde.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 22: 36 New
      +1
      So no one argues that the main archers were not heavy. And that the strands in the first place did not beat with bows. But they always had with them, enjoyed using it on occasion and did not despise such weapons. Unlike European nobility.
      Where did you see in my post something acre outlined?
  • AK64
    AK64 12 January 2016 22: 04 New
    -2
    The Spaniards held their spears the longest in Europe, but they had to be very bad when they began to fight in Holland against hired cavalry from the British, Germans and Scots (well, the Dutch themselves, of course!) Armed with cavalry pistols. And only Philip III ordered to cancel spears in the early years of the XVII century.

    This paragraph alone is enough to understand that the author does not understand the issue at all.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 January 2016 22: 37 New
      +1
      State your version? Compare, evaluate ...
      1. AK64
        AK64 13 January 2016 14: 43 New
        +1
        Yes, at least the fact that the Spanish third to Rocroix (and long after, to be honest) was simply considered invincible: well, the horsemen did not break through it. (Analogs: battles, shiltrons. Tertia is perhaps more modern)

        Rocroix ... Well, at Rocroix de Melo is good if a quarter of the troops were Spaniards. The rest are all sorts of Welsh and others ... from everywhere. The quality is very, very different. Doesn't this alone already make the author's phrase I quoted incorrect? It seems to me that this alone is enough to "stop reading further"

        Further, even with all this, the reasons (deep IMHO) for the defeat at Rocroix are Beck’s direct betrayal: de Melo directly ordered Beck (an imperial, not a Spaniard) to join, and planned the battle based on the participation of the Beck’s division. If he knew that Beck would not come, he would probably most likely get up in the wrong place: there was a diphile, and de Melo let the French go through it and freely debush. And this is not a mistake, this is a plan: Such actions are reasonable only on the assumption that they will have nowhere to retreat back to, but this means the necessary participation of Beck’s division. (In this case, due to the terrain, the French could have expected complete destruction.)

        That is, talking about the end of third as a tactic on the basis of this battle is completely ridiculous.

        But even in this battle, it was the Spanish thirds, the French pistols praised by the author, NOT punched: here they are in the pictures. The French cavalry was able to defeat the Welsh thirds, and then the Italian. But both are rated as soldiers far below the Spaniards. And besides, there is an opinion that in those and others there was a banal lack of pikemen, and the squads were very incomplete.

        De Melo's cavalry was mostly German - that is, again, the phrase about "hired cavalry from the British, Germans and Scots (well, the Dutch themselves, of course!), armed like pistol cavalry."looks like minimally irrelevant: we have the same international on both sides.

        That is, summing up, it seems to me that what I said is enough to understand that the phrase quoted ... is rather ridiculous. And there are more than enough of such phrases in the article: it is all of such phrases.

        In general: the dense construction of motivated infantry was extremely rarely defeated by cavalry. For example, in the Napoleonic wars there are literally a few examples of infantry squares defeated by cavalry. (Yes, and there quite often the system was broken by a dead horse already)
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • datur
    datur 12 January 2016 23: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Quote: Good cat
    Moreover, in Europe even riding archers could not shoot from a horse, since it was believed that they could not do such a base game, sitting on a noble animal!

    recourse I barely restrained when I read that the author was a woman.
    They simply did not know how and could not do it because the primitive non-composite English bow was too large, and strong crossbows were too heavy and fired too rarely.
    -woman, this is a woman !! wink
  • Denimax
    Denimax 13 January 2016 01: 02 New
    -3
    Quote: Good cat
    A good article, I was surprised when I saw that the author is a woman.

    Oh well, don’t be fooled by the signature.) The latest articles about past centuries are written by Shpakovsky.) IMHO of course, but the girl will not write such articles. If only kitchen recipes.)
    1. kalibr
      13 January 2016 07: 47 New
      +2
      Imagine writing! Yes, it cannot do without me here - editing and providing illustrative material from MM funds, but this does not mean that the woman herself cannot write work on the Middle Ages. Read the works of Nechkina, Baghdasaryan and many others. One of my colleagues defended the topic of the bread statutes of the English kings of the 16 century, and even there the devil would break his head in some translations from Middle English. Look who wrote the most comprehensive monograph on Turkish knives, again ... So don’t have bad things about women, right?
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 13 January 2016 04: 52 New
    +3
    Perhaps it is surprising that women can write articles? Yes, they are generally amazing.

    They even took part in wars. They were in space.
    They even teach, teach men. They can be doctors ...
  • Venier
    Venier 13 January 2016 05: 51 New
    +1
    The author and title of the painting are incorrect. The title of the painting is "Rocroix. The Last Third". The author is not Renx, but the contemporary Spanish painter of battle Augusto Ferrer-Dalmau.
    1. Venier
      Venier 13 January 2016 10: 56 New
      0
      Well, what the hell is that minus here! You ignoramus gave yourself a rating.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 13 January 2016 08: 45 New
    0
    Quote: abrakadabre
    So no one argues that the main archers were not heavy. And that the strands in the first place did not beat with bows. But they always had with them, enjoyed using it on occasion and did not despise such weapons. Unlike European nobility.
    Where did you see in my post something acre outlined?

    Be careful with phrases about "your problems" and everything will be within the framework of a decent dialogue. The conversation was about the fact that the Western European knights, they say, despised and did not respect the bow, considered this weapon unworthy, etc. etc. This is stupidity, not an argument. If a weapon is effective, it will not have to be respected or despised, for it will force itself to be respected. Everything else about the honor and dignity of chivalry is blah blah blah. They robbed, raped and killed these "worthy men" no worse than inveterate bandits.
    1. Pomeranian
      Pomeranian 13 January 2016 09: 17 New
      0
      Quote: DesToeR
      The conversation went that Western European knights supposedly despised and did not respect the bow, considered this weapon unworthy, etc. etc. This is nonsense, not an argument. If the weapon is effective, it will not have to be respected or despised, for it will itself force itself to respect.

      Each kind of troops has its own responsibilities. Could bow and despise - the weapon of the common people. This is from the same repertoire as death by the sword is honorable, and hanging for the noble is despicable.
  • Pomeranian
    Pomeranian 13 January 2016 09: 14 New
    +2
    It is not clear what people are so eagerly arguing about. Each kind of troops has its own tasks and responsibilities. For a heavily armed cavalry - to break the enemy’s line, for an archer - to knock out the most impudent (or stupid), for a spearman - to stop an attacking adversary and not catch a sword under a flapper, etc., etc. .. I repeat, the article is normal, nitpicking to the name of the paintings and other minor roughnesses are untenable, not a scientific monograph tea ..
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 13 January 2016 10: 45 New
      +4
      These people, instead of "boring" self-education, share their "theories" and fantasies. You have to answer and discuss a lot. So that other readers can see the mistakes of these "theorists". The work is thankless, but necessary.
  • brn521
    brn521 13 January 2016 15: 46 New
    0
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Hence, what are the benefits of trying to use a mounted crossbow? Yes, no.

    Quite real benefits. For shooting, you do not need to get down from the saddle, for reloading too. Total we have increased mobility. Those. they are not far behind heavy cavalry, around infantry they can maneuver and shoot as they please, and quickly get out of the attack too.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    High power is completely offset by the inability to make an aimed shot at a gallop.

    Galloping is different. This is an opportunity to hammer in a crossbow bolt from a distance exceeding the length of a cavalry spear, and nothing more. It was considered quite real. A mounted crossbowman can try to strike a knight in armor and stay alive if the shot is not successful enough. Unlike on foot. Moreover, you can recharge and try again. The "Parthian shot", for example, was considered in all seriousness. As for firing in a salvo, this is already an action in a group or formation, the possibilities for maneuvering are limited. Therefore, the shooting distance is greater and you have to stop. About the impossibility of reloading at a gallop - to the same koneluk. You can shoot at a gallop, but for some reason you cannot turn the charging handle. Something I doubt about your reconstruction capabilities on this issue.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Low rate of fire is only exacerbated by riding

    Knight's spear - also at one time.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    The inability to make a massive frequent volley does not make it possible to use such warriors for massive shelling over squares.

    So what? Of course, an anti-tank gun will also produce a bad mortar. But did they beat tanks, i.e. knights, or what? In the Middle Ages, a powerful crossbow seemed to be considered an armor-piercing weapon comparable to a spear in terms of effectiveness. Even in the fencing books, pictures were drawn and a rescript of some kind of Pope was available, such as incorrectly orthodox knights from such weapons, how much to do in vain. Well, to hope that horse-drawn arbalester will become similar to Koneluk, yes, that’s silly. As well as not looking to borrow tactics from Koneluk.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    The bulkiness of the armor-piercing crossbow will not allow normal hand-to-hand fighting.

    As well as the bulkiness of the spear. If it breaks or gets stuck, or there are no conditions for overclocking, you will have to quit. If necessary, you can do the same with a crossbow. That's just not necessary, you can move aside, recharge and make a hole in someone else.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    At the same time, the specifics of equestrian combat require the highest training and full reservation on a par with the knight of both the fighter and his horse.

    This is if you go into close combat. Those. we get a knight who, as a consumable, does not have a spear, but a crossbow, that's all. In this case, of course it is more logical to hand the crossbow to the infantry. But there may not be infantry. If you have a purely horse-drawn military unit, for example.
  • brn521
    brn521 13 January 2016 15: 48 New
    0
    Quote: abrakadabre
    That is the highest cost with absolutely ridiculous effectiveness.

    Crossbow dear, yes. But a knight is more expensive. Knock out his horse and then, consider the crossbow has already paid off. And if, thanks to the crossbow, the knight can also be reassured, the crossbow can also be gilded and decorated with diamonds. It will pay off.
    Quote: abrakadabre
    Europeans tried to experiment in this direction and came to a logical result - crap

    Well, the crossbowmen were not knights. For example, in some cases they were ordered to go into hand-to-hand combat, and instead they carried off their feet under the pretext of "reload and will certainly return" and "we are already defeated, there is no need to fight." If a warrior is not trained to take a punch, figs will make him do it. By the way, the most massively similar problem with discipline manifested itself in koneluk. Infantry shooters have less choice, don't stop strangers, so they will punish their own for cowardice.
    It was also noted the impossibility of hitting the squares, for example, to drop the banner of the enemy. Well, not that power and the wrong distance. Mobility must be used. There is no way to hit the front edge - move to the flank or even to the rear. If it doesn’t succeed, then at least the enemy cavalry, covering the flanks on themselves to distract and knock out anyone who succeeds.
    In general, as for me, a crossbow for a rider is a good extra. a chance for a knight or to lead a small number, up to auxiliary troops quite unpleasant for the enemy.
    By the way, at one time I was surprised that a heavy (non-fencing) two-handed sword, as many believed, was also a little needed "crap". But here I am not arguing.
  • Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 5 November 2016 07: 58 New
    0
    Thanks Svetlana - the article is well written. I read it with great pleasure.