why didn't natives just shoot colonists with their bows? by 18th century europeans stopped using armor, so should've been easy target for a much faster firing bow.
why didn't natives just shoot colonists with their bows?
why didn't natives just shoot colonists with their bows? by 18th century europeans stopped using armor, so should've been easy target for a much faster firing bow.
They did
This. Bows had a better rate of fire but guns had more range and could punch through multiple bodies. The Native Americans hadn't faced guns before and blobbed up rather than spreading out into a thin line.
I remember reading about Indians surrounding enemies in the 7 Years war and attacking them with muskets, not realizing the danger they posed to their friends on the opposite side of the enemy.
A native American bow is not going to punch through "multiple bodies" at anything approaching a reasonable range, if at all.
Reading comprehension.
>reading comprehension
>reading
Let me parse my post better
> Bows had a better rate of fire
> guns had more range and could punch through multiple bodies
Make sense?
And as sad as those deaths were at least NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. So those people are literally in paradise now.
And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For example, they are more consistent experiences:
>"For me, life is sort of like the haunted house. When you come in, you know it's just an experience. It's small, it's just one night, right? So it's just this one life. You're eternal, you have billions of lives, so knowing that you're going to come in just for one to have an experience, though it may be judged as tough, or difficult, or scary, you actually chose it because you knew it was just going to be an experience, you know it's no big deal. You understand on the other side that this part, life, is actually the dream, and you just wake up after. It's no different than one dream you had last night, out of a lifetime of dreams. This life that you're having right now is just one, it's just a blip."
So just like life is more consistent than our dreams (dreams last a few moments, life has been the same for decades), so too is the NDE reality more consistent than life (life has been the same for decades, the NDE reality has been the same for forever, for way more than trillions of years). Here this point is elaborated more on:
And it is instantly evident to NDErs that heaven is real too, even atheists:
>"It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."
From https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist
take your meds Amber
moronic thread
While the warbow with a draw of over 100 pounds might compare favorably to a musket in extremely specific circumstances, the bows of the natives were generally between 25-60 pound draws, with the majority being between 30-40. This is the difference between getting a two or three inch wide wound through your entire body at 100 yards and getting a half inch wide, two or three inch deep wound at the same range.
They also did not generally mass volleys of arrows, reducing the significance of their "rate of fire advantage".
Besides the extreme difference when dealing with armor, the biggest reason to use guns instead of Warbows was cost, or training and cost, depending on how linked you think those issues are. It takes years to train a good warbowman, and not one or two, more like five. The bows cost serious money, as do the arrows compared to musket ammunition. All for a weapon that might be at an advantage man-per-man against unarmored infantry.
>While the warbow with a draw of over 100 pounds might compare favorably to a musket in extremely specific circumstances,
Just no.
>Besides the extreme difference when dealing with armor, the biggest reason to use guns instead of Warbows was cost, or training and cost, depending on how linked you think those issues are. It takes years to train a good warbowman, and not one or two, more like five. The bows cost serious money, as do the arrows compared to musket ammunition. All for a weapon that might be at an advantage man-per-man against unarmored infantry.
Boomer fuddlore.
Musket completely overmatched bows in range and power. This is why musket conquered world.
>This is why musket conquered world.
ESL noguns or moron?
>ESL noguns or moron?
What's the difference?
>minor spelling mistake
>you lose
I also find it ironic that you call that anon nogunz as if "musket > warbow" isn't the objectively correct opinion to have.
>He thinks the spelling mistake meme is the same as ESL identification
You should go back where you came from.
>I also find it ironic that you call that anon nogunz
I dont know how they use that word on your home site, but noguns means he owns no guns, which I'm betting is the case.
>as if "musket > warbow" isn't the objectively correct opinion to have.
A moronic strawman, considering I expressed that exact opinion. Turns out war is about more than DPS figures in an RTS scenario editor.
>anyone who calls me moronic must be a tourist
Alright fine, it looks like he missed two plural words in a row, maybe he is ESL and I'm also moronic.
>musket > warbow
He said in extremely specific circumstances.
You are silly. It's OK, just please don't post cringe out of embarrassment.
You're an esl because you don't have enough of a grasp on the English language to realize you hold the same opinion as him. It's a shame your savage brown brain ruined what could have been a decent discussion.
>Musket completely overmatched bows in range and power. This is why musket conquered world.
Learn English. Also lack of any tactics to fight in an open engagement was a huge factor, probably more of a factor than weaponry. The Aztecs and Mayans, who had abysmal weaponry, compared to Europeans and even further north Natives, at least had a standardized military of sorts.
In the territories that became the U.S. and Canada, Natives didn't really practice open warfare. They practiced raiding, genocide, and "skirmishing with style"
Which worked well for them against handfuls of Colonists, but obviously failed when an actual military force with a reasonably competent leader showed up.
>Which worked well for them against handfuls of Colonists
Clearly it didn't or the colonization wouldn't have worked with so little military support.
In areas where the natives were overtly hostile, it didn't work out. Several of the earliest c0olonies were lost, and through time, up until a British/French/Spanish military presence was established it was pretty common for people to pack their shit and move to another bigger colony.
Colonists managed to repulse even hostile injuns. Yes, they lost sometimes. But the indians lost a lot more.
Colonies were actually seldom attacked, honestly. But the few times they were, it seems like a 50/50 sort of deal. Again, we're talking about the early ones. The British and French tended to luck out and meet mostly friendly or neutral natives. The Spanish set up shop in desolate shitholes where the native population tended to migrate a lot more often, save for Florida.
On top of that, there were quite a few early battles won by Natives. The Chickasaw kicked France's ass. Twice.
I'm talking about the English who, despite consistent powhatan aggression and treachery, managed to steadily expand the colony of Virginia.
The French were uniquely bad at colonizing. Pretty much all other Europeans did just fine even when the locals tried to fight back.
Then we're mostly in agreement.
Anon "murica" is not the whole world. You post is very burger centric.
ESL but it's true that firearms were vastly superior to bows and crossbows both in power and range. Not to mention not nearly as inaccurate as often thought of.
>Not dipping all your arrow heads into a vile soup made of human piss and shit before shooting them into the white devils invading your land
NGMI, the mind is the greatest weapon and the natives just didn't have what it took.
"Dead in a week" is effective only when your enemy cant sustain the same losses you can. A man can shoot quite a few of your guys before septic wounds drop him.
Sounds like cope to me, rain shit arrows and flee before you suffer many losses, hit and run shit arrow attacks as well as suprise night raids where your only goal is to pop a few white boys with shit arrows then flee before they know what's what.
Yeah like I said they were stupid as shit, trusting some stranger who shows up unannounced with crazy fire sticks and armor and horses....what fricking morons.
The mind is proven the ultimate weapon once again. There are many examples of out numbered and out gunned forces winning due to superior tactics, the mind. I hope I don't need to remind you that all weapons first start in the human brain and then are made manifest only afterwards. The only weapon that matters is your brain when push comes to shove.
>Sounds like cope to me, rain shit arrows and flee before you suffer many losses, hit and run shit arrow attacks as well as suprise night raids where your only goal is to pop a few white boys with shit arrows then flee before they know what's what.
The shortbow does not have a range advantage over the musket, nor particularly the rifled musket. So you scatter a handful of poisoned darts at your enemy with a terrible hit rate, probably lose a few men you can't easily replace, and now any time a trapper or woodsman sees one of you he blows you away from a safe distance.
Oh and your neighboring tribes (who probably hate you for throwing shit at them too) happily sell you out or buy guns and blow holes in you to drive you away from the hunting grounds or fruit groves your people need to survive.
So you mean they were too stupid to adapt and cooperate with each other? Poles were using arrowheads as improvised bullets in the middle ages, but injuns couldn't figure out a way to keep flintlocks running.
Don't believe me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hod%C3%B3w
>The first encounter took place on the fields near Hodów. The 400-strong Polish cavalry charged the 700-strong Tatar vanguard and made them withdraw. Shortly afterwards the Polish forces retreated to Hodów due to overwhelming enemy numbers, and proceeded to fortify themselves using heavy wooden fences left there from earlier Tatar invasions. For the next 6 hours Polish troops resisted relentless Tatar attacks. Even after the Poles ran out of bullets, they continued to fire at the enemy, using Tatar arrowheads as improvised ammunition for their guns.
>So you mean they were too stupid to adapt and cooperate with each other? Poles were using arrowheads as improvised bullets in the middle ages, but injuns couldn't figure out a way to keep flintlocks running.
I don't know what you think I was arguing for, but it wasn't "injuns good" or whatever, I was only ever arguing about the viability of specific tactics.
>Sounds like cope to me, rain shit arrows and flee before you suffer many losses, hit and run shit arrow attacks as well as suprise night raids where your only goal is to pop a few white boys with shit arrows then flee before they know what's what.
why would the braves follow you in attacks like that? where is the immediate (key word) benefit? what do they stand to gain materially right away?
>NGMI, the mind is the greatest weapon and the natives just didn't have what it took.
Kinda hard to compete with:
>"hey indians, you put up a fair fight, lets meet up for a peace treaty!"
>*Indians go to peace treaty*
>Meanwhile the US Army goes to their camp and literally murders every single woman and child
Another classic:
>The Indians live off the bison herds
>"Lets wipe out the entire species to make Indians starve to death"
skill issue
>dumb bluejacketed zogbots! we snipe you!
>what do you mean the food is gon-ACK
absolutely outskilled
Both of those sound like getting fricking outmanoeuvred
they could have done the same.
>Not sabotaging railroads
>not destroying telegram lines
>not plundering ranchers and their cows
>seek alliances with Mexico or Canada
>not attacking Washington
Expecting that much from stone age hunter-gatherers with smidgens of acquired tech they usually could not even properly maintain, cause no scientific knowledge or tools. They were struggling to keep the muzzleloading flintlock guns operational, all their lead and powder came from trade. Their lifestyle essentially precluded devising global strategy and executing sustained military effort, cant do that without centralized and authoritative command (warchiefs didnt have such prerogatives) and developed logistics. North American Indians weren`t on the same level as Incas or Aztecs, not that the latter fared much better.
If the mesoamerican civilisations had smashed into the conquistadores with cohesive strength they would’ve thrown them back into the fricking sea
Cortez and co. only survived because they were first unsure how to react and second subverted by divide and conquer, which was only possible because the aztecs were heart eating human sacrificing savages who deserved to be put down
>only survived because they were first unsure how to react and second subverted by divide and conquer, which was only possible because the aztecs were heart eating human sacrificing savages who deserved to be put down
That was perfect storm.
America had legends of ancient-super people-Gods who visited America and granted them knowledge. Spaniards fit these human-Gods legends perfectly. No wonder indigenous Americans were so confused.
Cortez was also like 6'6" or something ridiculous like that, when the mexia average male was 5'1". And he was on a horse (which they had never seen, and for a while didn't realize was a mount they thought horse and rider was one organism like a centaur) so would have been much taller even than that
I think that underplays the the ambition of the native woman with Cortez. The Aztecs made her a prostitute and she got revenge
You clearly have no firsthand experience with chugs.
To be frank, I don't
Chugs, or at least their modern descendants are the most contemptible beings on the planet, every negative attribute a human can posses is business as usual on the reservations, which is why the murder, rape, domestic violence and drug and alcohol being absolutely INSANE. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, the scummy shit they do to EACH OTHER makes the inner city black community look like the fricking Amish.
>fricking a chugette
They know how to FRICK, most likely because her father, brother(s), male cousins and uncles have fricked her since she was 13, and because of this she's also batshit insane and you shouldn't sleep with her, just rut and run.
>t. person who has never met a native
>t. Native whose going to tell you why the great spirit says he's not an alcoholic once he finishes his 4th six pack of the morning
>you can't attack our logistic network because... because you can't OK?!?
>>"hey indians, you put up a fair fight, lets meet up for a peace treaty!"
>>*Indians go to peace treaty*
So every single Indian warrior went to the treaty? Why not just send representatives?
Are you familiar with history?
Yknow the historical figure the bad guy from Pocahontas was based on made peace with the Indians only for them to skin him alive and set him on fire during a talk they asked for?
More awesomely, John Smith was actually a former child soldier merc who had killed three Arab princes in single combat, got captured, sold into slavery, fricked his owners wife so good she helped him escape, then fricking hiked back to England from Turkey before he ever started dicking down pocahontas. Dude was built different
>fricked his owners wife so good
>get to New World
>frick English "women" are worse than the food
>see Indians
>bleached.exe
>some 16 year old woman is so turned on she saves me
Great White wiener at it again.
Many such cases
>savage rapists, theives, enslaving murderers got out savaged, out raped, out enslaved and out murdered
Cry me a river squanto.
Cry me a river homosexual
>guerilla tactics beat conventional armies everytiem
>what do you mean professionals study logistics
Indians vs cowboys was the original zogbots vs larpers wasn't it.
The Comanche had it coming and deserved far more than they got.
>mfw the Apache/Comanche war that had the Spanish on the sidelines wondering what the frick is even happening as they come across regions that were completely abadoned
Scary shit to realize most to none of this was really recorded and every major battle was taken to a lot of men's graves
>we missed out on so much kino because of oral tradition
Really hurts doesn't it bro
>mfw reading what a Comanche raid actually entailed
>mfw reading what happens if you're taken captive by them
>mfw there are almost certainly entire peoples wiped out in this fashion during the Comanche's rapid expansion
Absolute fricking horror show.
40-50lbs is still very lethal, especially when you're hunting and fighting unarmored opponents. The Comanche were noted as being excellent marksmen, but also as being able to shoot extremely rapidly. They also had the benefit of having a readily available supply of osage, which is a fantastic wood for making bows.
I don't know if you're into archery at all, but you should definitely try out a Plains Indian-style bow. It's a different shooting style than traditional archery, but it's really intuitive once you've done it for a bit.
Id hope I was killed in battle rather than taken captive by indians.
The comanche were fricking animals, alot of what ended up shaping all indian behavior in battle was their love of torture, the indians would rather die in battle rather than be tortured to death.
Im just saying the Comanche were above the average north american indian in archery, both in resource availability and cultural traditions. This means you cannot encompass all as Comanches; you treat them as exceptions.
Yes, I like archery and wish my practice was way more frequent; low-poundage bows are very nice to shoot but useless in a battle scenario
>the Comanche
Probably the closest thing to Dark Eldar IRL, when every tribe/nation that you have ever come into contact with absolutely fears and hates you goes to show how absolutely ruthless and sadistic they were. The shit that did to captives, especially women is so disgusting that it makes guro look like vanilla hentai.
Whats crazy too is how they were all described, Soux and other upper plains indians were tall, regal looking.
The comanche were described as squat, and ugly by comparison.
They are fricking homely and unassuming to say the least. But on their horses, they were a terror.
Reading empire of the summer moon they comnache had trouble breeding amd keeping their numbers up, so they were the most prolific kidnappers and adopters of the era, their blood was diluted far earlier than other tribes just from sheer necessity.
>Soux [sic] and other upper plains indians were tall, regal looking
If that was ever the case they've degenerated substantially over the last century. The modern Sioux is a fat manlet who looks like a cross between a Chink and a Mexican and has been ravaged by alcohol and meth abuse.
t. lives in the Dakotas
Most modern indian tribes are pretty diluted, the descriptions im refering to are ones from the era though.
Based Texas Ranger Deathwatch Blackshields *redacted primarch*
Funny you say that because that's partially who I based my chapter on, though I made them Scars successors instead.
Hayes only hired orphans so you should go for 2nd or 11th primary imo
>comanche themed space marines
Sounds absolutely based, make them torture and maim the wounded, not in a Chaosy way but a "this is what you get for challenging/betraying mankind" kinda way.
>Chaos or renegade
Some Inquisitior or Sisters on the rag see this and think that you're corrupted by Slaanesh and proceed to try to purge your chapter, either forcing you into the arms of Chaos or running to Chigoris to get help from the White Scars who will NOT be amused by this.
No, I meant Texas Rangers like the guy I was replying to said.
That said, a Comanche renegade chapter could be cool to put in the same region I have them in.
>Khornate or Slaaneshi themed Chaos Space Marines running around with headdresses, riding Crushers while shooting sound cannons that sound like war drums mixed with the screams of all those Tau influenced colonists they just butchered.
Bruh. Khorneshis injuns for the win.
Eh i guess you have a point with the lack of metal.
>Texas Rangers
Wouldn't the Dark Angels (the Order) or Iron Hands (nomadic and great expertise with tech) be better narrative choices? The Calibanite Order had power armor knights on horseback with guns, and the Iron Hands also love bikes and guns.
They're not entirely Texas Rangers, that's just how the operate in the sector their in. Culturally their just generally cowboys and gunfighters.
I mostly chose Scars because of their cultural aspects. The poetry and art angle that the Scars have was easy enough to translate to music, cooking, and rodeos. I also like the love of freedom that the Scars have and thought that fit well.
Also they ride giant horses so the only options in my mind were Scars or Dark Angels and I didnt want to mess with the Fallen stuff.
Ok I'm defintely making these guys a thing. I had been wanting a big bad for them to worry about because I put them way out in Pacificus where nothing is but Orks and Eldar pirates.
Ah, a "plains warrior/herdsman" archetype, that kinda makes sense.
>Texas Rangers
You could lore write that due to their chapter doctrine and experience with tracking and pursuit that they give a disproportionate amount of Marines to the Deathwatch, and these Marines come back into the chapter with a black paldron with a silver star to denote their service.
>a big bad
>Pacificus
Necrons bruh.
>You are actually fricking moronic lmao braver =/= manly they also belived that killing, torturing and scalping farmers, women and children in raids is brave does that make it manly you moron?
I mean, they practiced total war. Humans have done that throughout all of human history. I don't really care what it is, but it does work. Obviously.
>Also funny how you cannot dispute my arguments
What arguments? I stated what the Comanche believed and you sperged out like a crack addicted downs baby.
>so instead you just make a seething shitpost and try to derail what I said and again you are projecting with this le coward bullshit kek
Anyone can read our back and forth, and see that you're a homosexual. I will reiterate...
>They used lances because big dick energy
>"STOP PROJECTING"
>No, they literally believed that.
>"WELL ARCHERY AND GUNS ARE JUST AS GOOD! HERCULES USED A BOW! LOTS OF NOBLES USED BOWS"
Then you typed up this last abomination of a paragraph that barely made any sense until halfway through where you collected your thoughts only to say I can't argue against your points when all you've done is edge closer to saying "Why use anything other than a gun or a bow?" whilst we're referencing time periods where melee combat was prevalent. I.e. you are a coward.
It is important to remember that people below a certain level of intelligence simply cannot understand hypotheticals, or consider things from a point of view that is not their own
The opening scene in Empire of the Summer Moon describing the massacre at Fort Parker is one of the most harrowing accounts I've ever read. The gleeful savagery on display was fricking digusting.
and here I thought McCarthy was exaggerating in Blood Meridian
>Cynthia Ann's brother John Richard Parker was ransomed back in 1842 along with his cousin, James Pratt Plummer. He was unable to adapt to white society and ran back to the Comanche. He later was left to die after he contracted smallpox during a Comanche raid into Mexico. The war party left a captive Mexican girl to care for him, and he restored her to her family after recovering, and spent the remainder of his life in Old Mexico after marrying her. During the American Civil War, he served in a Mexican Company within the Confederate Army. He later lived as stockman and rancher in Mexico, where he died in 1915.
jesus christ what a life
>Seven men were killed in the raid, though that does not begin to describe the horror of what Mackenzie found at the scene. According to Captain Robert G. Carter, Mackenzie's subordinate, who witnessed its aftermath, the victims were stripped, scalped, and mutilated. Some had been beheaded and others had their brains scooped out. "Their fingers, toes and private parts had been cut off and stuck in their mouths," wrote Carter, "and their bodies, now lying in several inches of water and swollen or bloated beyond all chance of recognition, were filled full of arrows, which made them resemble porcupines." They had clearly been tortured, too. "Upon each exposed abdomen had been placed a mass of live coals. . . . One wretched man, Samuel Elliott, who, fighting hard to the last, had evidently been wounded, was found chained between two wagon wheels and, a fire having been made from the wagon pole, he had been slowly roasted to death — 'burnt to a crisp.'
wtf i HATE Indians now
That kinda sounds like you're agreeing though.
>get tricked
>next tribe gets tricked
>next tribe says they're not gonna get tricked, so we promise not to trick them
>lol got you again dumbasses
Like duh. After the first half of the entire continent was conquered maybe they could have figured it out. You actually can win against that. THEY however couldn't.
>indians are great warriors
>but only against unarmed settlers
>when the army come they cry
So what you’re saying is they were easily tricked and completely lacked the ability to organize or strategize?
>inferior materials.
Doesn't have better composite bows or
Doesn't know the tactics the British Longbowman or the Mongol hordes are using
They did, its just that not all natives are on the same page. Some cooperated with the Europeans to destroy the native tribes and others just do it because it was like a symbiotic relationship. Native americans were not one nation.
They did. Many tribes, especially Plains Indians like the Comanche, were known for the quality of their archery, especially when used in fast-moving cavalry formations against opponents that largely used single-shot firearms.
Comanches were the exception, not the role.
Not really, there were numerous tribes known for having great archery skills across North America. The Russians dealt with some up in Alaska who also had armor that stopped bullets from time to time.
The Comanche did as well as they did because they actually did things that no other tribes dared to do, such as, engage in actual warfare. Even going so far as to use scorched earth tactics just to make sure Squanto and the boys were actually all dead.
It's actually along the lines of what Shaka Zulu, or Attila did. But with way more depopulation and enslavement, by percentage at least.
What is a "good archer"? Being a "good archer" with a 40-lbs bow is different than being a horse archer skilled in shooting and hunting with a 100-lbs one.
Attila had literal tanks at his disposal for the time equivalent. Zulu had ikwas as weapons of war that were more effective than clubs. You are trying to compare apples, bacon and a wet turd.
I don't think any Native American tribes had bows with draw weights over 60lbs. Maybe, maybe they had a few bigger ones approaching 80, made for some 6'5" freak of nature (by their standards)
They did not have European style warbows. They had numerous variations of hunting bows that just so happened to work on unarmored people pretty well.
>attila had tanks
Tactics are what I'm talking about, yeah he needed Cataphracts and sometimes elephants to defeat people who had the same sort of equipment and troops. But tactically, even though Attila was leaps and bounds nicer to his enemies than the Comanche, he did the same shit.
>muh Ikwas
The Comache used lances and bows from horseback, because their enemies fought a lot like the Zulu would have. The average Comanche warrior used a 12-15 foot lance whenever he could because that had bigger dick energy than shooting a bow. M'kembe wouldn't stand much of a chance, and yet again, i'm still talking less about weapons and more about the overall tactics used.
>Comanche warrior used a 12-15 foot lance whenever he could because that had bigger dick energy than shooting a bow.
Lmao gotta love when shrimp dicked homosexuals like you project shit like this, just go back
Bruh...that was literally their reason. It was more manly, braver, impressed the girls more, etc. to be a warrior who lanced people.
>sees word "dick"
>"STOP PROJECTING"
Could you even spell colloquialism if I hadn't spelled it for you right here?
there is nothing inherently more manly about lances over bows or guns lmao ffs even greeks and romans considered heracles to be an amazing archer and it was considered a feat of incredible strength to draw his bow same goes for Odysseus it is a modern moronation and insecurities causing morons to call melee weapons "manly" and others "less manly"
First, you already defeated your own point for me, yes western european nobles did fight mostly as heavy cavalry, why? Because they had the money to do so and it was one of the safest roles on the battlefield. Second, in other parts of the world many nobles specialized as horse archers or light cavalry (see samurai or turkish cavalry or even Polish Pancerni and Lisowczycy) besides most western nobles still practiced archery as it was considered a manly skill that anyone should know in order to hunt
>there is nothing inherently more manly about lances over bows or guns lmao
Set your autism aside for two seconds, then get it through your skull that the Comanche believed it was braver to lance someone than to shoot them. They believed that. I am not taking a stance on it. They did. Jesus Christ, you are one dense motherfricker.
>Lances had big dick energy
>"STOP PROJECTING"
>No they literally believed that
>"WELL ARCHERY IS SUPER MANLY, HERCULES WAS AN ARCHER AND...AND LOTS OF NOBLES"
Absolute coward, confirmed.
You are actually fricking moronic lmao braver =/= manly they also belived that killing, torturing and scalping farmers, women and children in raids is brave does that make it manly you moron?
Also funny how you cannot dispute my arguments so instead you just make a seething shitpost and try to derail what I said and again you are projecting with this le coward bullshit kek
>Attila did the same as Comanches
No he didnt. He used diplomacy to its full extent when it suited him, and reserved his barbarism to traitors and long-time enemies, such as Goths and Alans, long time nemesis of Huns.
Hunnic tribes had much better contact with enemy weaponry and even worked extense time as mercenaries for Rome. Comanches never had centuries of working together with settlers, it was all battle. They also even fought other tribes, while the Huns instead sought alliances to complement their forces (such as when they allied with a Goth-Slavic tribe, the Gepids, to serve.as infantry for their army in their initial war efforts against Rome).
Zulus were savages that only scratched the surface of horseback warfare, in a time when breech-loading firearms were gaining traction.
>Zulus were savages that only scratched the surface of horseback warfare
Zulus were an infantry force and invented all the standard tactics known to Europe since the time of the Greeks all by themselves. They also had proper battle order with rank and unit designations and could muster an army on a weeks notice, even the British couldn't do better at the time.
>invented all the standard tactics known to Europe since the time of the Greeks all by themselves.
>pincers movements
Lmao
Don't be and idiot. the horns of the bull were just the most spectacular tactic. they marched in companies, in close order drill, could wheel, separate and reform, maintain formation and take commands across the field. they had skirmishers, scouts, shock troops and heavy infantry. I guess they never had the phalanx or the square, but they had no artillery and nobody firing arrows at them so why would they?
there's a reason they owned South Africa until the British showed up, it's not like a bunch of fricking Dutchmen were going to fight them any more than the bush pygmies could. For that matter the British never beat the biggest Zulu chief of all, they had to resort to trickery and deceit and he still made it out alive with all his treasure and sent his sons to take part in London's high society.
>had armor that stopped bullets from time to time.
That'd be the Tlingit, though they used a lot of guns too. I'm too lazy to find a picture right now but they made some really cool chainmail using chinese coins they got from fur traders.
Also imagining seeing someone in one of those helmets in the woods at night. Scary shit.
It reminds me of modern tactical vests. I guess the principal is the same, cover the important bits while saving on weight.
This is also true for the most part, full armor coverage was never really a thing in the regions that saw a lot of armor use for obvious reasons (wooden full plate sounds miserable) and archers doubled as hunters both in peacetime and to feed armies on the move, so there was a greater focus on marksmanship and volume of fire than trying to make bigger, heavier bows.
Also in the case of the Inuits, there simply wasn't any good wood for bowmaking in the Arctic. It's honestly impressive what they were able to achieve with spruce, antlers, and the occasionally piece of driftwood.
Anyways the point is is that wooden armor is pretty cool. Heavy and makes you sacrifice coverage, but cool.
Also yeah, it's the same reason European nobles participated in cavalry charges and shit instead of hanging back and safely plinking peasants with crossbows all day.
Outside of the Tlingits, every armor example i've seen, be it helmets, chest coverings, or even the few examples of shields, it is all geared towards protection from arrows. And usually not even direct protection, just a greater chance of redirecting an arrow or praying for it to not hurt as bad when it punches through.
As a rule of thumb throughout history, armor was specialized against projectiles first, melee second.
Tlingit armor wasn't even particularly specialized against bullets for the most part, it just happened to work pretty well against them after they got introduced.
I understand that, it just baffles me that they didn't have more of an ability to protect themselves just a little better, across the board. Specifically from arrows.
Wood is heavy and bulky, you really can't do too much in terms of coverage and the other materials of choice either overheat you to death if you wanna go hardcore on protection (heavy leathers) or didn't work too well at stopping piercing by the inherent way you have to structure them (bone)
They were also pretty big on night fighting, weren't they?
>Wood is heavy and bulky, you really can't do too much in terms of coverage
I'm just saying anon, pic related. I suppose woodworking wasn't a huge concern, but still.
They did use shields though, they just weren't as popular because they couldn't be used alongside horse archery.
Also we don't really have many surviving specimens because rawhide doesn't preserve great in the long-term.
Yeah but isn't that a hide shield that was the most basic level of protection possible?
Thick hide backed by a thin layer of wood works pretty decently, especially when metal arrowheads aren't a thing.
There's also accounts and drawings of all-wood shields from European settlers as well.
The shields were covered in broken mirrors or high polished metal slivers to dazzle and disorient in their general combat environment. They were more like super primitive EW for the Comanche than expected to serve as ballistic protection
>They were also pretty big on night fighting, weren't they?
Yes. Several merchant ships were taken in such a way.
Here you are.
The Tlingit didn't fight the Russians with archery very often. In ranged combat they usually used the muskets that the Brit and US traders were selling them and sometimes they even used smaller cannons as well. Their intention was always to close with the enemy though, not waste time at range. Remember that, like the Vikings of old, they were primarily sea raiders and fought just like every other sea raider in history did.
Range
not really related to the topic but it reminded me of this, thought it was funny
Lying little c**ts deserved what they got.
Yes, because Spaniards are renown for their honesty
Skillful trolling
smug_injun_pepe.smokesignal
Lel. Very clever playing up the ignorant savage routine to their advantage.
Their bows sucked.
>stopped using armor
>be natives
>see colonists
>wait until dark
>sneak around colony
>poison wells
>poison foodstocks
>release farm animals
>ambush travelers
...ultimately ineffective unless you can get many thousands of other natives to perform such terrorist activities throughout the entire colonial region.
>be colonists
>post sentries
They did. Thing is, tactics don't win wars. Industrial bases win wars.
real life isnt like Age of Empires 3
>maximum range shorter than a musket's effective range
What a mystery.
too dumb to invent good bows
Plains Indian-style bows are fricking great, anon. It takes a bit to get used to the different shooting style, but the quick draw-release method lets you shoot absurdly quick once you get some practice in. Consider also that many of these tribes lived off of hunting and raiding, so they'd be extremely skilled with shooting them on foot and mounted.
Great for what they are, but completely outmatched in power by larger European and Asiatic bows. This power grants longer range, and the ability to launch larger, wider broadheads.
Yeah we're all aware of that. Are you the same moron who was going on about "war bows?"
>They didnt have good bows
>Their bows were great!
>not compared to other bows
>Sh-shut up!
>jewnited sharts of muttfartica'
Trying way too hard.
I really like those swastikas on his outfit.
Usually because they had guns.
Indians would trade for guns the instant they met anyone who had guns.
And because they hunted and fought all the time, they often had better guns and more experience with them than settlers did.
Does anyone have a link to that blog that collected a bunch of primary sources on guns mogging bows? I've lost it.
I'm gonna level with you fellas.
If you willingly sign up to risk your life and oppress the American people in arms, I have no qualms with immediately sending your soul to God. I will not hesitate, it is just work I must do.
In the WV uprising it was the NG then the Army, mercenaries too. I'm not afraid, my trust is in God. If you truly decide to face our own citizens in honorable combat, I respect your gumption, but not your motives, and would have no qualms with slaying thousands of traitors to the American people. With slaying the oppressor.
Just remember these words if you choose to accept those orders. That is war, I'm risking my life all the same. I would expect no different from the enemy.
The bot is broken today.
Natives are idiot moron and all the idea about them being great warriors is just fricking propaganda
They fricking lost, got raped and exterminated
They did all the fricking time and the plains Indians significantly leveraged their weight of fire advantage due to bows vs muzzle loaders against Whitey. They was the entire backstory behind the genesis of two obscure American organizations known as The Texas Rangers and Colt Firearms. John Coffee Hays? Colt Walker Dragoon? The Texas Rangers vs The Empire of the Summer Moon?
You must be brown or illiterate because the bows vs muzzleloaders problem was the prologue to one of the top 3 most legendary/ famous sagas of the Wild West
>plains Indians significantly leveraged being able to easily reload on horseback*
Horseback archery was the only context where bows maintained any sort of relevance after the early 16th century. And that was because muzzle loading a firearm while riding a horse is a bit awkward. But repeating firearms took away even this advantage, which is why those plains indians eagerly adopted them. Although it's worth noting that horse archery, while more sensible than trying to keep using bows on foot, still didn't work very well against guns. Unlike the American indians, the manchus stubbornly tried to retain the bow and suffered for it.
https://bowvsmusket.com/
>https://bowvsmusket.com
thanks
Native Americans fought great wars amongst each other for muskets and shot - often before ever seeing a white man, such was the trade demand for guns. Muskets have longer range (balls travels hundreds of yards), flatter trajectories, greater penetration and cause far more severe injuries than bows. Only the poorest tribal bands or individual warriors carried bows into battle.
Ugha ugha, me proud native, First Peoples. Ask me anything white eyes.
How many fentanyl pills have you smoked today?
What tribe? Do you have membership?
The bow and arrow of the red man is romanticized by Hollywood but if you read any primary sources concerning contact with Indians you quickly learn that even primitive firearms were vasty superior. The Indians almost universally adapted to use firearms as quickly as possible because of said superiority. I just finished A Tour on the Prairies (1832) and it makes zero mention of Indian archers.
my guess is that it's an honor thing - they waged wars with hatchets and never shot arrows at people, bows were only used for hunting
the english longbow shits all over any competition in history
The English longbow is cool, but not for the reasons most of its proponents suck it off for. The popular understanding is that it was this armor piercing super weapon that no one else used because it took too much skill. The reality is that it wasn't all that great at piercing armor and that, while it did take growing up using one to achieve the crazy high draw weights, it was actually the weapon of farmers who received less military training than the professional crossbowmen and arquebusiers they're often compared against. This is the actual reason it was so impressive.
Knights didn't just spend their entire lives training for war. Feudal society itself was built around supporting the training and equipping of this elite warrior aristocracy. They were the actual super weapons that were generally expected to decide the outcome of battles. And yet they could be somewhat reliably crippled (sometimes literally) by being unhorsed by a lad who normally spends his time farming to support his people's own warrior aristocracy.
The English longbow was far and away the most efficient anti-cavalry weapon in an age when cavalry was king. Even pikemen were expensive professional soldiers requiring a high degree of discipline to be effective. But you could just make your peasants practice archery in their free time and have an entire population of reasonably effective horse killers that could be called up and thrown into battle without any additional training. And yeah, the English did lose the hundred years' war. But but they put up a good fight for how comparatively cheap their army was.
brain dead post war is not about weapon OP, war is about tactic too. if you have RPG but you have bad tactic & doesn't know enemies it is dumb that's mean you just an animal
>by 18th century europeans stopped using armor
Just plain wrong. You could have GLANCED at any depiction of the early indian wars and instantly suspected otherwise.
They weren't good at war because they're moronic. Go hang out with some reservation monkeys you'll see immediately why they lost. Zero competence at anything except getting liver failure levels of drunk.
>While some dipshit politician tries to negotiate a peaceful agreement with the band of raping savages, my entire US Cavalry squadron took over their camp and are now running a train on the Chieftains daughter.
Deffo sounds like a skill issue.
The indian was by nature aggressive, brutal, and warlike. That's precisely why they never integrated well with the technologically superior and capable colonists, and were driven out of their ranges as they enacted ruinous wars on their neighbors and settlers.
Advantages of bows:
-quiet (stealth)
-faster reload speed
-no build up of view-obscuring smoke
Advantages of muskets
-longer effective range (yes, even accounting for accuracy)
-far more lethal per hit
-terrifying sound
-better at hitting moving targets
-takes less experience and innate ability to master
-can carry larger quantities of ammo more easily
-can load with grapeshot
-doubles as a short pole-arm or long club
-don’t have to unstring and restring all the time
To me, the most important advantages of the musket are training times and lethality. For raising armies efficiently and reliable, the musket was the natural successor to the crossbow. With limited standardized training, anyone can become an effective enough shoe. Bows take much longer to learn how to effectively use. Then there’s the wounds. Bows, especially ones with lower draw weights like most tribes used, are not going to create a lethal wound unless they hit a vital organ or artery. Treatment is relatively easy, and often times a soldier can even continue fighting before removing the arrow. A musketball creates a much larger wound channel thanks to increased energy and hydrostatic shock, and generally requires a surgeon to patch up. Most wounds will be lethal if not treated quickly and professionally.
Holy fricking moronic thread batman
Holy fricking moronic op robin
Herbed, herbed, herbed, this has to be bait you can't actually be this ignorant
After the white man completed his god given trial and slaughtered enough native Americans Jesus stepped down from the clouds in heaven onto the steppes of the American west and handed Samuel Colt the first revolver.
Your 18th century musket was ALOT more capable than your 15th century arquebus.
Keep in mind that by the 18th century firearms had been in use for over 300 years.
Rifling, Reloading drills, Proper training, Bayonets (Not sure wether those were in use in that theater) all meant that firearms werent more capable, but also alot more useable too.
Contrary to popular belief the only reason to choose a bow over a gun after the 17th century was style, beliefs or just not having access to firearms.
Was reading Comanche Moon by Larry McMurtry and he describes how Comanches would slice the soles off their captives feet and force them to dance until exhaustion, then execute them in brutal ways.
The spanish were slaughtered on the coast of florida:
>In this skirmish some of our men were wounded in spite of their good armor, which was not enough to protect them. We had men who swore that on that day they had seen two oak trees, each as thick as a man’s lower leg, pierced from one side to the other by Indian arrows. This is not so surprising in light of the strength and skill they have in shooting. I myself saw an arrow penetrate the base of a poplar tree one xeme deep. All the Indians we had seen in Florida to this point were archers, and since they are so tall and they are naked, from a distance they look like giants. They are quite handsome, very lean, very strong and light-footed. Their bows are as thick as an arm and eleven or twelve spans long. They shoot their arrows from a distance of two hundred paces with such accuracy that they never miss their target.
from an original account:
>Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (ca. 1490-1558) and the survivors of the disastrous expedition led by Pánfilo de Narváez were the first Europeans to cross the entire southeastern portion of North America. On April 15, 1528, 600 soldiers with the Narváez expedition landed near Tampa Bay, on the gulf coast of Florida. Only four were to return.
Penetrating even a few inches of hardwood requires a bow with twice the draw weight of any ever found on the American continents
granted. The account is first person but the reference is apocryphal.
Why didn't Europeans just not let israelites practice usury? Has there ever been another minority ethnic group that was oppressed into power? The poor israelites tried to pick up a plow and those dastardly Europeans ripped it out of their hands and said "not so fast, you're going to start a bank and charge me interest!"
>Why didn't Europeans just not let israelites practice usury
Turns out debt and fossil fuels are the only methods to growth without war, and sometimes you need a break from war
>/k/ user try to go five seconds without mentioning the israelites out of context challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
>Literally homosexual leftoid Twitter user
>Why didn't Europeans just not let israelites practice usury
Because that was the one thing they were allowed to do by Europeans.
>not understanding basic economics
>bringing up da jooooz completely unprompted and unrelated to the topic at hand
Take your meds you moronic /misc/Black person.
post your gun
You first homosexual
That's how we can always smell you raiding homosexuals from a mile away, that's why the Post Gun filter is so effective: Accused posts first, you'd know that if you were from this board.
Guarantee I've been here longer than you lmao, you smell of election tourist
>Like clockwork they'll say anything to try to move past the fact they didn't post gun
No gun no opinion.
>doesn't deny being an election tourist
>doesn't post his own gun
Deflection thy name is /misc/Black person
Accused posts gun first, you'd know that if you'd been here longer than a cold.
Nobody has ever agreed to your homosexual rules except the voices in your head, schizo boy. You're the one who cares so much about this, surely if you had a gun you'd post one, right? Because in my experience the people who do this never actually have guns themselves and never post them.
Lol keep digging noguns.
I've been asked by many /misc/Black person election tourists to post guns over the years, and I've never had a single one actually post their guns back. So until I see one post guns first, I'm convinced that the post guns game is just pure projection by noguns.
They did, but bows have less range and are harder to use from cover, albeit easier to use from a horse. Its actually quite hard to hit a moving target, especially when you're being shot at, and men with guns in formation or large numbers can and will wreck men with bows. Let alone the cannons. How the frick is some indian war party going to take on a British infantry square? Or storm a fort manned with guns and men? The plains indians needed large numbers and a concerted effort to remove them, but they were never going to be able to completely push out the colonists, and when those were in place guns had advanced such that you had repeater pistols and lever action rifles, then they were double fricked, well, that and disease making them triple fricked.
indians were the arabs of the new world, even with guns europeans would've pushed their shit the frick in and if europeans hadn't done it asians would've
Requires getting in close to be relevant, terrain permitting -- bayonet charge close. Then you have inconsistent terminal performance with broadheads that accommodate greater range. And the arrows take up a lot more space.