Quote:


I think part of it is.............the indigenous australians are a very old culture...........ancient in fact...........might of been the oldest that was still going.

They entered and stayed in australia before the bow was invented elsewhere maybe?

Eye Dash wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 5:00am:


You need a bow 4-6 times more draw weight to even think of doing that. And the proper arrows/arrowheads

NaturalHazard wrote on Dec 7^th, 2013 at 12:55am:


Well, there are lots of foks that just despised bow and arrows: see the ibeerian (Spain) or the Vikings. It was known and used for hunting, but really introduced as the composite bow by the roman impire. As the Roman Impire vanishes, the composite bows also disapears (X century or so).

Something about bows and arrows in Australia, was interesting

http://austhrutime.com/weapons.htm

Eye Dash wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 7:54am:


They used also the thrusting swords or war hammers to get through the armor.

Eye Dash wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 7:54am:




No, not really. And this is a 15th century crossbow. The Spanish Breastplate, padded, was really almost impenetrable (until fire weapons)

But really heavy armor was very rare and very expensive. Even today, a good heavy armor costs you around 10.000€

Eye Dash wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 7:54am:


You are an idiot.

Glenalth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:


Well I don't think it is the most common way, but knocking anyone down does make them more vulnerable, and if the guy is falling off a horse even in armour he could be winded or even injured, disable then kill, grab his arms hold him down, slide a dagger in somewhere,  bash him repeatedly on the head with something, even a big rock FFS. Armour doesn't make you invincible. One unskilled guy in full plate against some skilled guys with nothing not even weapons and they could kill him, surround him get him to attack, tackle him from his blind side, hold him down then kill him, the armor of course makes it harder. Even a skilled fighter in it against multiple unarmored but experienced fighters would likely go down, but would be more likely to make them pay for their victory.

Didn't the swiss as lightly armored infantry have great success against armored knights with pikes and halberds and other weapons? And most of these guys where from the peasant-farmer classes?

Glenalth wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:


You are an offspring of a syphilitic whore and an aids infected faggot.
Cheers! 

NaturalHazard wrote on Dec 8^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:


A knight would never have been pinned under the weight of his own armor. It's just one sentence in a load of bullshit that highlights that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Knocking someone over is a good plan though, and in a knight's case would have made it easier to capture and ransom them instead of killing them.

I think people forget, knights are way different back in those days then portrayed on the telly. They lived in their armor, there were many that could jump on the back of their horse in it.

Eye Dash wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:


...and there you go again.

40lbs of armor that has it's weight spread along the entire body isn't going to immobilize any trained soldier.


Somewhat related video:

Glenalth wrote on Dec 9^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:


That's abit more than 18 kilos,and would be the lightest possible armor.

See this http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/digital/fact-vs-fiction/medieval-knig...