Re: Two OFFICIAL statements (read carefully)
>Personally, I think I would rather go with the period materials, but
>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.
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
- Chris wrote:
> However, routs where poorly-equipped and low-bornActually, cannon in the 14th and 15th century were relatively
> annihilated ranks of knights on horseback were common after about
> Crecy and similar battles spelled the death of the exclusivity of
> combat on the battlefield. And just as archers had that effect, so
> 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.
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