Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Two OFFICIAL statements (read carefully)

Expand Messages
  • Chris
    ... Personally, I think I would rather go with the period materials, but that s just because I like doing stuff they way they would have done it. Call me an
    Message 1 of 62 , Mar 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      >
      >Quinn,
      >Point taken, and considering these rules are in place for individuals that
      >are not as familiar with wire rope and it's applications as I am, I will
      >have to yield to you on this topic. It is a shame, though, because good
      >wire rope is superior to period materials.
      >
      Personally, I think I would rather go with the period materials, but
      that's just because I like doing stuff they way 'they' would have done
      it. Call me an eccentric (I know I do!) :-)

      One thing I've been thinking about on the whole cannon banning thing...
      Some would seek to eliminate archers and siege engineers from the field
      entirely; one sentiment I've heard is "I didn't come here to get killed
      by an arrow." However, routs where poorly-equipped and low-born archers
      annihilated ranks of knights on horseback were common after about 1350.
      Crecy and similar battles spelled the death of the exclusivity of
      combat on the battlefield. And just as archers had that effect, so did
      cannon. Plate could be made to withstand an arrow, but a 5lb. ball of
      iron was much harder to withstand. After 1450, gunpowder was the
      equalizer, even compared to mechanical siege weapons such as ballista
      and trebuchets. While it is saddening that the days of noble knights on
      horses fighting for honor and crown departed when they did, those days
      did depart. And they departed, largely because of the cannon.

      But those are just my thoughts.
      Kinoshita 'Yes we had guns in Nippon' Yoshimori
    • Marlin Stout
      ... Actually, cannon in the 14th and 15th century were relatively inaccurate and unreliable. Since they were loaded with loose gunpowder, they had major
      Message 62 of 62 , Apr 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Chris wrote:
        > However, routs where poorly-equipped and low-born
        > archers
        > annihilated ranks of knights on horseback were common after about
        > 1350.
        > Crecy and similar battles spelled the death of the exclusivity of
        > combat on the battlefield. And just as archers had that effect, so
        > did
        > cannon. Plate could be made to withstand an arrow, but a 5lb. ball of
        > iron was much harder to withstand. After 1450, gunpowder was the
        > equalizer, even compared to mechanical siege weapons such as ballista
        > and trebuchets.

        Actually, cannon in the 14th and 15th century were relatively
        inaccurate and unreliable. Since they were loaded with loose gunpowder,
        they had major problems with rain (or even heavy dew). Handguns were
        formed by bending a plate of metal around a dowel and hammer-welding the
        thing into a tube. 'Cold' welds or air pockets made the guns liable to
        burst when fired. larger cannon were cast in bell foundries, often of
        brass, and were liable to burst when fired. The bow and crossbow were
        the main antipersonnel missile weapons for most of the period, since
        they were reliable, proven technologies. It was also very difficult to
        aim cannons at small targets like people.
        The biggest effect of medieval guns was fright. A gun was the loudest
        thing most medieval people might ever hear, and it would have been scary
        as hell to hear this earth-shattering bang, see a big cloud of smoke and
        fire belch from the thing, and see the effects when a ball did hit it's
        target. Add to this the fact that most medieval folks didn't really
        understand how guns work, and you can see how frightening it could be.
        There are accounts of besieged towns surrendering when they heard rumors
        that guns were coming.
        BTW- medieval cannons wouldn't have fired iron balls. Small guns and
        handguns would have fired soft lead balls, and large guns would have
        fired stone balls. Bombards would have fired stone balls, sometimes
        wrapped in iron bands. The guns on the Mary Rose, for example, all had
        stone balls, and were something like 3-5" bore weapons.

        Ld Charles MacKinnon
        SR Dep. Siege Marshal
        Ansteorra
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.