[center][img]https://68.media.tumblr.com/55892b6185efd8590de8ab0b170b7b9b/tumblr_ov5jcfRnni1sx8o26o1_500.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][h2]Ranged Weapons[/h2][/center]

[h3]Bow & Arrow[/h3] The Warbow is an interesting and pivotal invention introduced to warfare. A weapon that allows men to harm those who they cannot reach themselves otherwise, truly changes the game. The bow alters how one views tactics, numbers, terrain, and even the art of science, engineering, and mathematics. Archery also introduced other means of ranged attack, particularly with the development of siege units. Those shall be looked upon in a future article. For now, personnel weapons will be discussed. 

Archery was a learned skill, much like a blacksmith's craft (though while blacksmith's often worked for settlements, archers worked for Lords and Kings, so the pay was proportionate). Whereas the usage of a shield in mass warfare required little training to make an effective shield wall, simply needing to hold the instrument up in a line to be used effectively. The bow needed to be correctly aimed, trajectory correctly guessed, units needed to fire in a uniform volley at (roughly) the same area, etc. In most cultures, the archer was a class set separate from the common soldier, though often not to the status of a Knight or a Noble. Many bowmen were yeoman, or land owners. Because of their training and skill with a bow, and due to their military service, an archer was allowed to own a limited portion of land and perhaps even have a few serfs in his employ. Of course there were exceptions. In England, there was a time where every able bodied young man was [i]forced[/i] into learning archery, because it was such an important tool in the way the country waged war.

In this article, I will mention the 'Self Bow' and the 'Laminated/Composite' bow. The Self Bow was a bow with a single piece of wood/material used in the making of the bow stave. This bow was most common around Europe. The Composite Bow was made in a different fashion, with different materials laminated together to create a strong stave. I will go into further detail below.

[b]Short Bow[/b]: There aren't any treatises of the short bow, nor are there much mention of them in primary sources, nor do any survive to this day (that I know of). That is because the short bow was not a unique invention of note, for it had been used for thousands of years before the proper medieval era. A common tool to hunt, or for self defense. The short bow was nonetheless deadly and put to effective use in both the dark ages and medieval Europe. Estimation would be at least over 50 pounds with the draw weight, for it was built to take down lightly armored men, or big game such as Elk.

[b]Composite Bow[/b]: The Composite Bow was made of horn, wood, and sinew. Together they made a stronger stave than the Short Bow, even though they shared relatively the same size. The Composite Bow was often a 'recurve' as well, where the tips of the stave were curved backwards to further add to the drawing weight, increasing its power. It was popular on horseback as well as foot, due to its compatibility, and incredible stopping power for its short size. However Composite Bows had certain weaknesses. It was difficult to make one larger, for the intense power could rip the various materials apart. It would also break apart relatively easily in humidity, which is why it was so prevalent in the dry Middle East. Armies would need to wrap their staves in leather or thick cloth if it began to rain to keep its quality.

[b]LongBow[/b]: The Longbow was a tall instrument, the stave five to six feet long. It was technically a Self Bow, with yew, elm, or ash used to create the stave. However the heartwood at the center of it would create a natural 'laminate,' so while the same material was used, the yew/ash/elm would overlap as if it were a laminated/composite bow.
 
Most believe that only the English used the Longbow, but in fact it was used throughout Europe from the 13th century onward. However it was the English that used it to devastating effect, particularly in the '100 Years War.' The bow is thought to have originated in Wales, and the Welshman often used ash, despite yew being often perceived as the best choice.  

The Longbow is a source of much contention and argument over many would-be historians and military buffs. The lesser argument is [i]poundage and range[/i], and the one that starts the most shit was if it [i]was or was not armor piercing[/i]. I shall discuss those two topics now. 

[list]
[*][i]What poundage does a Longbow have[/i]? Some historians believe the Longbow was merely 90 pounds of draw weight, though that's an unpopular opinion and I myself find it horseshit. Archeological studies of the enlarged shoulders of the Longbowmen for drawing such incredible weights could not occur with just 90 pounds being drawn. Some go as high as 180 pounds, and while this might be possible, it would take too long to train an army to use such a weight. The primary sources indicate between 130 and 160, depending on the Bowyer. 

Most modern recreation Longbows can fire up to 200 yards, however a 'Mary Rose' replica bow can fire 272-360 yards depending on the length and weight of the arrow. A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yards, reportedly. It is also reported that no practice range was allowed to be less than 220 yds by order of Henry VIII.

[*][i]Can Longbow arrows pierce plate armor[/i]? The answer is relatively simple: Very unlikely, but it's not impossible. Now you'll hear some accounts indicate that Longbow arrows have killed men by shooting them in the face, however there are no named men who died to arrow wounds in the face without their visors being lifted and their faces exposed. 
The '100 Years War' is often used to prove that the Longbow could or could not pierce plate, due to varying accounts of the battles. It's well known the English dominated the first half of the war due to its use of the Longbow, while the archers were protected by heavy Infantry. However it's important to note that most medieval armies, including the French army in the 14th and 15th centuries, were not all men in full plate armor. Most were more lightly armored and common soldiers, wearing brigandines and chainmail, with little to no protection to their necks, or extremities. In the famous battle of Agincourt, the Longbow was indeed instrumental for victory. However so was the terrain making the French Knights tired, as well as the English infantry capitalizing on it, and the fact that many French horses died from the volleys of the arrows. Many of the Knights, the men in plate armor, made it to the English lines and were captured. In fact so many were alive and captured that Henry V had them executed once rounded up (which was against the rules of war at the time) because if they gained cohesion, there was enough of them alive to overwhelm the English forces. This entails that many men in plate armor did not die from Longbow arrows. However, note that even though the Longbow has considerable power, its main usage in a 'volley' fire makes the poundage less important (though not completely) because gravity is then its main source of momentum. Now, with a straight shot? The Battle of Crecy does have a quote where arrows were fired into the French ranks, and the [i]thinner[/i] parts of the Knight's armor were pierced by Longbow arrows. Though it was seen as a rare and extraordinary thing. 

Now, let's do a small math problems. If you have 100 Longbowmen and 100 men in plate armor, 100 meters from one another, and have the infantrymen charge? An English Longbowmen can fire once every 7 seconds (if pressed), and let's say it will take 4 volleys for the Knights to reach them. Now, let us say that the Knightly armor is very effective against the arrows, so out of 100 Knights, only 5 die per volley due to hitting weak points in the armor. By the time the Knight's reach the archers, a quarter of them are now dead. That is a significant portion of their number, so even if Plate is effective enough to block it, tactics are important. 

However, to conclude, if you are wearing plate armor, you should feel fairly safe even when against a Longbow arrow.   
[/list]

[h3]Crossbow[/h3]The Crossbow was employed in warfare far earlier in China than in Europe, showing up in the west around the 11th century. It was used all over Europe, but it gained true popularity in the Italian City States of Milan and Genoa. Now we're going to discuss the strengths of the crossbow, and then its weaknesses next. 

Due to the fact the Crossbow can remain drawn, and the strength of arm in the draw is not a factor, the crossbow is inherently a more powerful weapon than the traditional bow. A crossbow's poundage was often 200 pounds or more. The weapon was armor piercing, able to punch through all but the thickest parts of armor in a straight shot at good range. It was also relatively easy to learn how to use, and in fact it was far, far easier to be trained in than with a traditional bow. It would only take a few hours to get accustomed to loading, firing, and reloading a crossbow. Not only that, but even though it is a cumbersome weapon, it's also compact and one does not need the dexterity wielding it they would need with a bow. Therefore, it was easier for crossbowmen to wear heavy armor. 

However there were glaring weaknesses. The crossbow was only good in a straight shot. To fire a group of crossbows in a volley, you would be hard pressed to wound an enemy much less kill them. Which meant if you did not have a clear line of sight, the crossbow was almost meaningless. You could not volley fire over walls, only shoot those you had a clear line of sight with. The crossbow was also far slower to load than a traditional bow, which can mean the difference between victory and defeat in many battles. Furthermore, it's more cumbersome and much heavier than a bow. 

While most Historians agree that Pope Innocent the II in 1139 banned the crossbow for it's 'barbarity,' some still do contest it so I wouldn't advise thinking it gospel. Just something to keep in mind. Now, there was 4 different types of crossbow, based upon how they are reloaded. The first is the 'Stirrup,' a crossbow with a stirrup to put your foot in at its end to help load. The next is the 'Ratchet,' using a lever operated system with crossbows that was more powerful than the stirrup. The 'Claw' Crossbow was an upgrade from the Stirrup, using both a stirrup and a 'claw' at one's belt to grip the crossbow string, using your back to help the reloading process. The most powerful reloading mechanism was used in the most powerful crossbow, the Arbalest. It was called the 'Windlass' mechanism [1](developed in the 15th century), rotating twin wheels much like a bicycle to pull the string back.

[1]There were variations of these reloading mechanisms as well, mixing and matching various ones over the centuries. [url=http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/crossbows/crossbows-spanning-methods.htm]Here[/url] is a good, accurate link to the different types, with information on them besides. 

[h3]Primitive Firearms[/h3] Seeing as this is a 'Medieval Guide,' I'll not go very in-depth with firearms. However I will give a general idea of their usage in the Medieval era. Now, the first true firearm that wasn't simply a miniature cannon, was the Arquebus. It was a match-lit, 'hook gun' because it was often mounted on a hook to better help with the recoil of its firing. It was lit by a slow fuse, and it would ignite the gunpowder. The (hopefully) controlled explosion inside would launch the ball out of the barrel at high speeds. 

As most history buffs know, primitive firearms were not very effective in battle. They were prone to blowing up in their trooper's face, they took forever to reload, and they were relatively expensive at their first conception. They also had terrible range. A long barreled Arquebus had a similar (though somewhat worse) range than the modern 9mm handgun, the maximum range of which was 50 yards, and the effective range being 20 yards. Though keep in mind, within a century after its inception, muskets grew far more accurate over longer ranges, though it took another century or two before they could equal the Longbow's effective distance.

The reason for its usage in warfare, despite being initially far inferior to the Longbow and Crossbow, and even the shortbow in many respects, was its power and damage to enemy morale. If an enemy unit grew close enough, within 20 yards, a primitive firearm had a decent chance of piercing most armor and providing a very different, concussive wound than a ranged weapon that used a bolt or an arrow. Furthermore, the average soldier was not used to such a thunderous crack of weapon fire, and the uncertainty of where the weapon would hit, giving a devastating blow to morale. 

The Matchlock mechanism was created in 1475 (though Arquebus with a simpler design were made around the year 1400) and was the first gun to use a 'trigger.' 

[center][h2]Armor[/h2][/center]
[center][img]https://img04.deviantart.net/590d/i/2011/322/7/b/steel_and_glory__belmonte__1480___4_by_dativo-d4gkw8t.jpg[/img][/center]

The single most important innovation in Medieval Warfare was armor. It was not decoration, nor was it costume. It was practical equipment made to keep the wearer alive. It allowed you to close distance with someone who you might not usually be able to close distance with. If you wore certain types of armor, a swordsman can now be as effective, or even more effective, than a spearman, because you can now move past the spear point unhurt (or relatively unhurt) and gain the advantage in close quarters with your shorter weapon. With certain types of armor, percussive weapons (Battle Axes, Warhammers, etc.) or less nimble swords like the Falchion, lose many of their faults and keep most of their virtues, becoming devastating. With armor, your life can be saved, you can keep yourself from being crippled, you can turn the tide in a fight. Armor. Is. [i]Paramount[/i]. In medieval warfare. 

Just as with the sword, the development of larger and better armor took several centuries, from padded wool, to Chainmail, to the Coat of Plates, to Plate Armor. I cannot stress enough how important armor was. It shaped the development of weapons and tactics, and even fashion and style. Speaking of which, while this guide is here to provide you with useful information, I am not a stickler for if you choose to ignore a fact or two. Experts often argue that the Helmet is generally the most important piece of armor one could wear (though some contend that the breastplate was), and if you could only choose one piece, choose the helmet (there is a reason Motorcyclists wear helmets and not chest protection) however, my characters in role plays don't often wear helmets, despite me being accurate in most other forms of clothing. So, while the information below will provide you with facts, don't feel bogged down by them. This is merely to help you be more realistic in your period attire, and in practical usage of medieval equipment in combat! 

[h3]Cloth Armor[/h3]No such thing. Shut up... 
Ok by that I mean, there was never any clothing or robes that were considered armor. There were various small variations, such as folding your cloak around your free forearm in order to help guard against a slash as you dueled someone, but generally speaking no. However, whereas your average clothing was not used, there was something very popular in the medieval era called- 

[b]Gambeson[/b]. It was used either on its own, or under chainmail/plate armor, the Gambeson was a thick jacket that could doubly serve for a winter coat. It was made by what we call 'quilting' (the process of sewing two or more layers of fabric together to make a thicker padded material), and its inner layers were filled with various things, such as wool or horsehair. Due to how thick the Gambeson was, it was surprisingly good at protection, though of course men often needed heavier armor to get the job done.   

[h3]Leather Armor[/h3] 
Now, you Rogue/Mage fans out there will be familiar with leather armor. If you enjoy Elder Scrolls or Dungeons and Dragons, you'll be quite at home using such material for protection. However, they have a more 'modern' and 'urban' feel to how you can make a character and interact with the world. If you're looking for an historically accurate representation of armor on the medieval battlefield, leather armor was almost nonexistent in Medieval Europe, and was only used when there was nothing better in the east. Leather, while thick, is not nearly enough protection for a soldier. Any determined cut from a sword, or any real kind of thrust from a dagger could pierce leather. Simple as that. However, leather was often better than nothing, and was also used to add padding to other armor. The two types of leather armor were Rawhide/Buff leather, which needs no real explanation. As well as [i]Cuir bouilli[/i], or 'boiled leather,' the historically accurate method of making it now lost to history, though many have attempted to recreate it and have come up with practical results and made tough material. Now, here are some leather armor your poor soldier, or rogue might use.

[b]Laminar[/b]: While Laminar armor was not always made of leather, it was not uncommon. Laminar armor is an armor made of horizontal, overlapping rows of scale plates made of various material. It was popular throughout the Middle East and Asia. If you think of Japanese foot soldier, or a Roman foot soldier's armor often called lorica segmentata, this is it. 

[b]Lamellar[/b]: It's hard to distinguish the difference between Lamellar and Laminar, being essential also made of horizontal rows of plates. However, they were often laced together and not overlapping, and this armor was often worn over padding underneath. So this would be the type a Japanese foot soldier would wear, yet not what a Roman one would wear. So essentially, it could be considered a subtype of Laminar.

[b]Buff Coat[/b]: Worn in the late Medieval and Renaissance period, it's a sleevless jacket made of leather to help guard against cuts, popular with poorly equipped pikeman, or as a civilian protective garb. Important to note it was made with very, very thick leather. Much thicker than in popular media, and this was one reason why the arms were not covered or protected. It would impede movement heavily. 

[b]Jerkin[/b]: Used by hunstmen to help protect their vital organs against a medium sized or smaller wild animal, or a stray accident in the woods. Sometimes used in fashion as well by various civilian classes, high to low. 


[h3]Chainmail[/h3] Used as the pinnacle of protection during the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries, only the wealthy could afford it and was favored by Knights until later centuries, where foot soldiers wore it, or Knights wore it under their plate armor to aid in protecting their weak spots. Unbeknownst to many, chainmail was not a single layer, but usually 3 to 4 layers of chain links to better protect against arrows and thrusts, for if one layer was pierced, the other layers would wind around it, lessening the concussive damage. Though even with this, it wasn't perfect protection against thrusts and piercing attacks, and was mostly used for guarding against cuts and slashes. Chainmail usually weighed between 20 and 25 pounds (9 to 11 Kilograms). It was one of the few pieces of armor that didn't make one overly hot, for the chain links could 'breathe' still.    

[h3]Coat of Plates[/h3]A very interesting piece of armor, only used for a relatively short period of time. However it was paramount in the evolution of European armor, for after 70 odd years of use in the 14th century, it led to a split in armor. The light 'Bringandine' and the heavier 'Plate' armor were its ancestors. However, onto business. 

The Coat of Plates is a form of segmented torso armor made of overlapping metal plates riveted inside a cloth or leather garment. Essentially many plates of metal placed very close with one another, almost like very large scales, worn atop a jacket that kept it all together. If you're looking for a (admittedly poor) representation of the armor in media, think of the scale-like armor English foot soldiers wore in the movie Braveheart.

[h3]Brigandine[/h3]Odd that the Brigandine is not shown often in media, for it was a pivotal part of late medieval warfare, particularly the 15th and early 16th centuries. A development of the 'Coat of Plates,' the Brigandine was essentially a cuirass made of smaller, overlapping riveted plates. There were slightly larger plates over the rib section to better protect vital areas, and giving the curiass a domed shape. The Brigandine was a very effective piece of armor, able to withstand most cuts and thrusts, only really being vulnerable from very strong attacks like a Lance from a charging Knight, Warhammers, straight shot heavy ranged weaponry, etc. It only covered the chest, and while it was less flexible than mail, it was far more flexible than Plate Armor. 

It was a piece of armor used by Halberdiers, Archers, and more common foot soldiers. With the less rigid breastplate, and with a man's arms and legs free, he could freely shoot a bow, wield a polearm effectively, dig holes, set up fortifications, etc. while still being fairly well protected. Often if a soldier wanted more protection for his arms and legs, he would wear a chainmail hauberk underneath the Brigandine. Coupled with a helmet, most of a man's vital areas were well protected. It was also easy to put on without a servant, unlike the heavier Plate Armor, for the straps were located on its front, not its back.

[h3]Plate Armor[/h3] Now I could talk about the cuirass, the pauldrons, the greaves, but I'll save that for a future article. For now we'll talk about the general facts of plate armor. 

The pinnacle of Medieval armor, though the least flexible with the poorest field of vision without the visor up. Plate Armor often weighed between 30 and 40 pounds (13-18 Kilograms), and while that was fairly heavy compared to other armor, Plate Armor as well as Chainmail was spread around the entire body, so it was very much unlike simply holding 30-40 pounds in one spot. So while marching in it all day could be fairly taxing, the weight was not a problem in a single engagement, or even a few hours of useage (unless its heavy combat). What was a problem was heat being caught in the armor, as well as the fact that it took a servant to help put the armor on effectively. However, once all of the pieces were on, there were very few situations where you would be the underdog in a fight being clad head to toe in plate. Good armor could even protect a man from primitive firearms and other armor piercing weapons at its thickest parts. Often times, Gambesons or Chainmail were worn under plate to protect the few vulnerable areas of the armor, such as under the armpit. Now as the medieval era progressed, advances in metallurgy, as well as metal being more plentiful, allowed experimentation with larger sets of metal armor, eventually transforming into the full plate. Fun fact, at the pinnacle of the medieval era, plate armor was often heated and formed like a sword blade.  

It is important to note that even at the High Medieval Era, Plate Armor was an expensive investment. Knights had to provide for the armor themselves, and it was virtually impossible for a peasant or lower class soldier to afford the armor without extraordinary means. [3]

[hr]
Special thanks to [@Kassarock] [1] & [@Aristo] [2] for reading over and adding suggestions! ([@PrinceAlexus] reminded me of how expensive plate armor was!) [3]
[hr]
The next article will be a more in-depth look at [b]Swords[/b]!
 
[sub][i]Please, do not comment. PM me with suggestions, additions, or ideas for future articles after![/i][/sub]