Roman; you are correct but there is one caveat, it takes a lifetime of
practice and training to become a competent archer and a couple of weeks to
learn to shoot an harquebus, if you don't blow your own head off first.
That one fact caused the doom of the military archer. You could line up
waves of harquebus's and put a pretty devastating amount of destruction down
range that went through almost any thing and every thing that was hit,
including the armored Knight.
VW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roman Turovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: longbows & lutes
Possibly. However a sense of humer is not really useful in jurisprudence.
It can be as this judge shows.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTcyN2UzMDE3NGNhNGFlZjU0YjMzOWE1YzkxMjk0NWE=
Too bad. The arquebus was supremely effective against archers.
RT
Actually not so much. Archers could fling many more arrows down range
than arquebusiers could fire rounds, and in a shorter period of time.
Loading times for the early muzzle loaders was horrific. If you wanted to
achieve anything like rapid fire the archers had it all over the gunners.
Powder was notoriously fickle, and the bloody things are just plain heavy
compared to even a heavy crossbow. Then there's range and accuracy to
consider. They were more effective against charging infantry and cavalry.
Regards,
Craig
Arquebisiers did a splendid job during the Battle of Pavia in 1525, mowing
down the French army.
RT
_________________________________________________________________
Need personalized email and website? Look no further. It's easy
with Doteasy $0 Web Hosting! Learn more at www.doteasy.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database:
269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM
