Weapons Question: Crossbows vs. Early Firearms

[Viking]

Actually, I guessed previously that your average Samurai would have to spend a lot more time in armor without the comfort of a large number of retainers or blacksmiths, but I'm not totally sure this is warranted.  I'm not even sure that the rate of violence between the Sengoku and the Thirty Year's War aren't comparable-Thirty Year's might even be higher.

it did take 300 years for Germany's population to recover and the 30yw competes with the taiping revolution for the title of third bloodiest war in history.

[Razgovory]

I don't think the consensus is that gunpowder was cheap, but rather that it wasn't that expensive.

If I were to guess I would say that the cost of a crossbow bolt may not have been that much different from the cost of ball and powder. The powder probably gained more from mass production than the bolt, and the balls could be manufactured trivially easy by the gunner himself (no skill required). I don't know the price of lead.

Yeah, and given that I've read that the opposite was true, I wonder what people are basing this idea on.

Mostly the massive switch to gunpowder weapons.

I guess tanks must be cheaper than horses.

Depends on the tank and the horse.

[Malthus]

Japanese armour included types which had, basically, massive steel plates for breastplates. Where it differed was in how the armour was articulated (the Japanese used laces a lot).

Nanban-influenced breastplates that I previously mentioned, and they were generally made of iron rather than steel.  And again, they were 17th-century like single pieces of armor rather than full 16th Century plate.  I think there's probably also a technological component-I think it's probably a more than safe bet that the Japanese at the tail end of the Sengoku period were technologically on par more with the England of the English Civil War than the England that saw Henry VIII fight in one huge piece of steel at a tournament.  Japanese firearm technology and technique was superb. 

Apropos of nothing, Henry VIII's tourny armour in the Tower shows the man had some ... masculinity issues. 

[DGuller]

I dunno, Samurai armour is pretty heavy duty.

Japan's, as well as Korea's, terrain is a lot more European than Asian.

[jimmy olsen]

It's more comparable to contemporary Russian or Turkish armor.  Largely lamellar and ceramic, occasional nanban-inspired breastplate.  I think it would actually probably be a lot easier to fight in than the Western equivalent, and due to Japan's inclement weather and iron shortage it was probably ideally suited to the period.

Plate armor wasn't hard to fight in, that's a myth.

[jimmy olsen]

That wasn't the only reason I gave though.  Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north.  It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills.  And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West.  I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting. Imported iron is better spent on swords, which aren't exposed to the elements nearly as much and are not going to be substituted by ceramic.

If the English wore armor, then obviously rain wasn't too much of a problem if you took proper care.

[Razgovory]

It's more comparable to contemporary Russian or Turkish armor.  Largely lamellar and ceramic, occasional nanban-inspired breastplate.  I think it would actually probably be a lot easier to fight in than the Western equivalent, and due to Japan's inclement weather and iron shortage it was probably ideally suited to the period.

Plate armor wasn't hard to fight in, that's a myth.

No, it was hard to fight in.  Armored knights passed out from heat exhaustion during the battle of Towton, and that was during the middle of a snowstorm.  Melee combat is exhausting by itself.  Add to that wearing heavy metal clothing that didn't dissipate heat, yeah that's hard to do.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I read somewhere that European armor was developed largely to accomodate the logic of the joust.

On the other hand, you have heavily armored professional soldiers like the landsknechts which sort of refutes this.

[Viking]

I think I read somewhere that European armor was developed largely to accomodate the logic of the joust.

On the other hand, you have heavily armored professional soldiers like the landsknechts which sort of refutes this.

landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.

[Admiral Yi]

landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.

We might be talking about two different things.  I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.

As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.

[Josquius]

That wasn't the only reason I gave though.  Japan rains all the time, and snow is very common in the north.  It's actually a pretty difficult climate, especially if you get high enough in the hills.  And you'd probably be wearing this armor a bit more than your warrior elite compatriots in the West.  I don't think iron armor was practical-which has a price component, obviously, but your armor isn't going to be any good if you're caught in a rainstorm in Tohoku of the far north and everything starts rusting. Imported iron is better spent on swords, which aren't exposed to the elements nearly as much and are not going to be substituted by ceramic.

If the English wore armor, then obviously rain wasn't too much of a problem if you took proper care.

Its not rain which is the issue, its humidity.

[DGuller]

Too bad grumbler is no longer around to give us a first hand account.

[Viking]

landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.

We might be talking about two different things.  I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.

As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.

You're talking about the Doppelsöldner, which were a sub group of Landsknechts, recieving double pay to stand i the front line. They were typically heavily armored and armed with the zweihänder (two hander) heavy swords and were not equipped with shields. They (allegedly) went in and used their swords to either cut off the pike heads or knock them aside and kill (or more ideally scare the living shit out of) the pikemen. They had cuirass and greaves on hands and thighs (bits easily accessible to pikes) and were heavily armored yes.

[The Brain]

landsers were not typically fully plated. Pikes and muskets equipped with cuirassess and possibly helmets or thigh armor. Though the joust is not the driving factor of armor. The joust would drive for unidirectional limited armor.

We might be talking about two different things.  I'm talking about the Krauthead mercs with the big two-handed swords.

As to the joust, the effects armor had on the participants mobility and endurance were beside the point in a joust.

Jousting armor diverged from combat armor, but I am uncertain about when exactly this happened. I find it unlikely that jousting was a significant factor when designing combat armor though.

[Admiral Yi]

I find it hard to believe that your run of the mill knight kept two suits of armor in the closet.