Ask me about archery, longbows especially.

Crossbowmen were professional soldiers. The idea that they either chose to or were unable to perform any other military or fighting role is not even remotely accurate.

Think of all the scenarios that would crop up on a military campaign where a crossbow couldn’t be used:

The rain.
Fog.
The sun goes down.
In the woods or in a city where the enemy can get close to they can only get off a single shot before the enemy closes.
After they run out of ammunition.
Their crossbow gets damaged or lost.

The idea that a professional soldier confronted by any of those scenarios would have no choice but to immediately throw their hands in the air and surrender is not realistic.

 

We talked about this before, but it's really damned hard to ensure that you're going to kill somebody with one shot from a bow, even a crossbow. I mean, arrow wounds can be, and often are, horrific, but people on the whole are surprisingly death-averse and can survive some amazing stuff if they really want to. Choking them out or knifing the hell out of them are much more certain.

Also, a crossbow isn't much faster than a normal bow. I remember reading somewhere that historical crossbows range between 200-250 fps. A good longbow or recurve is going to be in the 150-175 fps range. That's not a significant enough difference in travel time that you're ever going to ensure that you land the shot you take; again, bows aren't guns. All the target has to do is flinch at the noise and that center-mass shot becomes an upper-arm graze. And then what?

Plus, it's hard enough to see where an arrow impacts its target. As discussed much further upthread, an arrow typically passes through an unarmored, man-sized target. It happens commonly enough that part of bowhunting is retrieving the arrow and examining it to see what part of the critter you hit so that you know how to track it. A crossbow bolt is smaller than an arrow and moving faster. You'd likely never know where you hit the target, especially in low light.

 

I'm sure that knife would be more effective than any long-range weapon in general.

I agree that assassins probably didn't, and don't, have much of a career structure. Not a job with a lot of security. But there have always been political, as well as religious, assassinations. And sometimes these assassins would have been supported financially by rich patrons.

And some assassinations would have been carried out purely to settle a grudge.

 

We need an "Ask Me About Assassination" thread.

"Hi, Scribes! I'm an expert in . . . um . . . hmm. You know? Never mind. I'll show myself out."

 

On a related note, I should probably be deleting my browser history more assiduously.

 

Agreed. That would be hard to imagine.

 

I’m not an expert... but from what I know you will find a similar variety in bolt heads as you will arrowheads... specialized down to square heads with 4 points theoretically to not skip off heavy armor so easy. And of course hunting tips could vary widely, crescent tips for hunting birds... you name, somebody probably tried it.

More peculiar to my mind are bolts without fletching.

And apparently the Genoese had a guild making the bolts, so one should be able find what they used..

 

I’d expect knights on a ship to armor up as they saw fit. You probably don’t know how to swim anyhow, as a knight on a ship, so the rate of drowning might be faster, but...

 

I remember Conan Doyle putting a sea battle into one of his medieval romances. The White Company, I'm pretty sure. When the captured pirate captain is told he's going to be hung from his own yardarm (or some part of the ship, anyway), he commits suicide by leaping overboard in full armor and sinking like a, well, man in a suit of armor. But first grabbing one of his enemies to take with him to hell.

 

Modern studies have found that it is actually possible to swim (very slowly and awkwardly) in full plate. you wouldn’t want to have guys shooting arrows at you from a boat, but you can keep your head above water easily enough.

Armour would probably be preferable on a boat. The restricted space, uneven footing of a boat deck and the pitching and rolling of a boat at sea would seriously impact a fighter’s ability to use their footwork to dodge blows from an enemy, so being able to absorb a hit would be invaluable. Experience in fighting at sea would be invaluable.

 

We need an Ask Me About Armor thread but holy crap, I get tired just thinking about it.

 

I've done water survival training in a full combat load with boots and a rifle, no armor. It takes a startling amount of effort, like no-shit flashes of "This is it; this is how I die" just getting to the edge of the pool. I don't doubt that someone motivated and extremely physically fit could keep their face above water in armor for a few minutes, but I'd likely argue the word "easily." Do you have a link to the article? I'm intrigued.

 

I’ve read several articles over the years. A google search will give you several results if you want to look into it further.

Here’s a video:

 

Thanks for this. This tracks with my experience in modern-day military gear.

He also isn't wearing a helm, a coif, an arming jack, a felted tabard, a surcoat, sidearms, faulds, and a shirt of maille, even a partial one; he's about 20-30 lbs. light (far more, when wet) and even then, he's good for about ten yards. It could be done, but it's not like you can be knocked overboard at sea in Maximilian harness and tread water until they circle back for you.

Interesting concept, though. Great link.