Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lars Porsenna" data-source="post: 1859061" data-attributes="member: 24208">In the campaign I'm playing in currently, the DM has vehemently resisted any suggestion of introducing gunpowder weapons to the campaign. He is under the impression that the introduction of say a matchlock handgun will immediately lead to the development amongst PCs of machine guns and rapid fire weapons. In keeping with the late medieval feel of the campaign, I pointed out that the lack of firearms is an anachronism, not their introduction. Unfortunately, I have better knowledge of exactly how dangerous these early firearms are, and as some points in this thread demonstrate, not very.One point though: someone above talked about longbows &quot;easily&quot; penetrating plate armor. This is a bit innaccurate. I'm sure plently of people have seen the demos of a longbow penetrating a breastplate or helmet. But these tests are usually contrived and done under very favorable conditions (i.e. at close range). Usually the range at which a longbow reliably penetrates plate armor is also the range in which an armored man-at-arms can be on the hapless longbowman within a few seconds (IIRC around 30yds or so). Under normal combat conditions and at range the longbow was not the medieval equivalent of the &quot;lightsaber&quot; I think Pop history makes it out to be. The real advantage of the weapon was volume of fire, and the fact that horses of the time were vulnerable to the weapon (they didn't have as complete armored protection-sometimes none at all-as the knight). But ultimately, if you look at the famous English victories during the Hundred Years War (such as Agincourt), there are far more reasons behind English victories than simply the longbow. Indeed, I would put greater emphasis in my analysis on the fact that in the &quot;Big 3&quot; (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) the English occupied favorable terrain that favored that style of fighting, and/or were greatly assisted by the quality of French leadership. Damon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lars Porsenna, post: 1859061, member: 24208"] In the campaign I'm playing in currently, the DM has vehemently resisted any suggestion of introducing gunpowder weapons to the campaign. He is under the impression that the introduction of say a matchlock handgun will immediately lead to the development amongst PCs of machine guns and rapid fire weapons. In keeping with the late medieval feel of the campaign, I pointed out that the [i]lack[/i] of firearms is an anachronism, not their introduction. Unfortunately, I have better knowledge of exactly how dangerous these early firearms are, and as some points in this thread demonstrate, not very. One point though: someone above talked about longbows "easily" penetrating plate armor. This is a bit innaccurate. I'm sure plently of people have seen the demos of a longbow penetrating a breastplate or helmet. But these tests are usually contrived and done under very favorable conditions (i.e. at close range). Usually the range at which a longbow reliably penetrates plate armor is also the range in which an armored man-at-arms can be on the hapless longbowman within a few seconds (IIRC around 30yds or so). Under normal combat conditions and at range the longbow was not the medieval equivalent of the "lightsaber" I think Pop history makes it out to be. The real advantage of the weapon was [i]volume of fire[/i], and the fact that horses of the time were vulnerable to the weapon (they didn't have as complete armored protection-sometimes none at all-as the knight). But ultimately, if you look at the famous English victories during the Hundred Years War (such as Agincourt), there are far more reasons behind English victories than simply the longbow. Indeed, I would put greater emphasis in my analysis on the fact that in the "Big 3" (Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt) the English occupied favorable terrain that [i]favored[/i] that style of fighting, and/or were greatly assisted by the quality of French leadership. Damon. [/QUOTE]

Verification