NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8295821" data-attributes="member: 16814">Let's be clear.  You took a "period accurate study" value for a flintlock rifle, and then made some assumptions about what a flintlock pistol would be like and came up with your number.  That doesn't, at all, bring the imprimatur of "period accurate" to your hasty assumption and quick math.The only actually quoted period accurate study in the thread has a value for various flintlocks that align with your source AND a value for a flintlock pistol listed at 385 m/s.  If you want to claim studies as support for your position, why are you relying on your assumption and extra step math rather than actual study data if not because your number supports your argument while the other does not?Archers were not issued these.  Any side weapons an archer had were brought from home, which made it rather unlikely to be a sword, despite the fanciful artistic depiction of archers at Agincourt.  Archers got bows, if lucky (many had to bring their own -- look up how conscription armies worked in feudal times).  If an army actually had good archers, they protected them.  The reason the archers were on their own at Agincourt was that the English could not provide the manpower to protect them, instead needing every man to stand against the vastly more numerous (and better equipped) French army.  The actually winner at Agincourt was French hubris and mud.What's your source on this?  Everything I've seen on the archers at Agincourt suggests they were pretty typical for their time period, which means many probably had a metal helmet of some kind (usually just a cap) and most probably wore a quilted gambeson, but the odds of even brigandine were very low and probably rare amongst them.  Quite likely a number of them didn't even have armor at all.  They most certainly clad in mail or plate -- outside perhaps Henry's personal archers (which he had).You should look at the rates of production of mail and arms during the late medieval/early renaissance.  This most definitely wasn't at all industrialized nor did it look like production line manufacturing, but a few large forges were able to turn out staggering amounts of armor for foot -- such that large armies could be clad in steel relatively easily.  Now, this was foot armor, mostly -- the proofed armors for nobles that could take a musketball to the breastplate at a reasonable range was still very expensive and time consuming to make.  But the amount of armor and weapons and early firearms that were actually produced using distinctly non-modern approaches is still staggering.  It's easy to assume that older peoples weren't as industrious as they were because we can do the same much easier and cheaper, but this is a mistake.  Just look at the building projects people undertook with bronze as the best tools!  What forges were able to actually make was far greater than any assumption that you have a master smith at the village forge turning out a masterpiece while the apprentices make a few horseshoes.</blockquote>

Verification