What would the medieval equivalent of gun control look like?

There are several obvious examples of laws passed by the ruling class to prevent peasantry from being armed.

In japan in the edo period the shogun had had enough of the constant buddhist backed peasant revolts and passed a law banning the ownership of swords for all but the elite classes, which served to control the populace and begin the establishment of the romanticized samurai class (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt)

I remember reading that HRE or medieval germany did the same in regards to the peasantry owning swords, which led to the development of messers, which were basically swords constructed in the manner of knives so as to bypass the law (see )

the state makes you a spear and gives it to you. Keep in mind that for the governing entity to have the authority to enforce such a ruling, they would have to already have a decent sized military force presumably. Also in history many common tools double as weapons (hammers, mauls, axes, scythes, etc), and bans may have pertained to the kinds of tools/weaponry that were not common amongst the peasantry (swords, crossbows, guns before they were widespread)

so strict weapon control in the middle ages would have banned almost every tool that could be used as a weapon.. so it would be completely impractical

except maybe a totalitarian ruler loaning out the tools during the workday, with armed guards near the quarry / lumber camp / etc. and seizing the tools at the end of the workday and storing them in a guarded building or something

>peaceful
Peace is more than the absence of war. Certainly more than the absence of weapons.

*rapes Nanjing*
Soo honorabru

Fpbp. Crossbows meant anyone could kill a fully armored knight with minimal training.

every village and town had different laws back then. There were no 'national laws' or 'papal laws' enforced to any degree. It would have been impossibly since it took days just to travel from town to town.

>Crossbows meant anyone could kill a fully armored knight
user.. 1000 lb heavy crossbow failing to penetrate plate armor + gambeson:
youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ

Attached: crossbow_vs_plate.jpg (677x590, 37K)

no, idiot. re-read his post then go back to school.

>medieval equivalent
Banning use of thumb rings that made a common longbow a military style baby-killing assault longbow.

>What would the medieval equivalent of gun control look like?

This M'lord.

Attached: BBC 1315 AD.png (988x782, 768K)

Yeah, but you could still pierce at the joints.

Well in the later and larger kingdoms they weren't allowed to own large stockpiles of weaponry and there might have been problems if you owned a suit of armor and a longsword (not that a peasant can even afford those)... But no-one would blame the local blacksmith for having armor and swords around, nor the hunter for owning spears and bows. Also peasants would simply have needed knives, pitchforks, axes and more tools that are also weapons.

So in modern terms they would have banned citizens from owning tanks, attack helicopters, mounted machine guns and such unless you somehow needed them for work.

Note that this doesn't count for every society, as the Germanic lands had many kings and warlords. In the earlier and smaller kingdoms owning and carrying a weapon was to be expected, it'd be insane to travel without one.

KEK

bro how the fuck are you going to hit the joints with a crossbow

true but that's not the center of mass, it's a relatively small target

I don't know if there were any long bows with a draw strength close to 1000 lbs so a crossbow is definitely an advantage but it would still be hard to take out a fully armored knight, if you missed and he could reach you on foot you'd be screwed - and a joint shot would help disable him but it wouldn't be lethal

They were literally too cruel for pope's taste to use against CHRISTIANS.

Not pagans though, you could still shoot a pagan with one!

Was about to ask this. It's like performing a trickshot every time you fire.

Crossbows were popular because peasants could use them with little training as well. You usually shouldn't expect peasants being given weapons that could penetrate full plate armor.

based serf safety patrol
>SS patrol

Attached: fraulein_beer.jpg (401x345, 37K)

Who uses a crossbow where they are easily reached?

someone trying to hit a moving target as small as an elbow or knee

see against plate + gambeson even a 1000lb crossbow could not harm the wearer
the "crossbows beat knight armor easily" meme is a myth

A crossbow is a shit weapon in every aspect but one: it has range. It will never be used when the range is small.

No crossbows have more advantages than just range. You can load them so hard that you need mechanical assistance (levers, gear cranks, etc) and store all that power behind the trigger (without needing to constantly exert force to hold the bowstring back like a regular bow). I doubt the average man in the middle ages could draw a bow with 1000 lbs of force, but he could load a 1000 lb crossbow with mechanical assistance and pull the trigger.

The higher "muzzle velocity" of the bolt would allow it to penetrate better than an arrow, especially at close range when the bolt still has most of its kinetic energy. And especially with a sharp bodkin tip for penetration (although it still struggled to pierce full plate armor with a gambeson).

Fag. Longbows had more power and range than crossbows. Crossbows simply required less training.

that style of bolt head is for chainmail.
try this.

Attached: bolthead2.jpg (394x347, 22K)

yeah basically this
180lbs longbows are better in every way, but you need a lot of training before you can draw one and fire it accurately

> Longbows had more power and range than crossbows.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Draw_weights

Estimates for the draw of these bows varies considerably. Before the recovery of the Mary Rose, Count M. Mildmay Stayner, Recorder of the British Long Bow Society, estimated the bows of the Medieval period drew 90–110 pounds-force (400–490 newtons), maximum, and Mr. W.F. Paterson, Chairman of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries, believed the weapon had a supreme draw weight of only 80–90 lbf (360–400 N).[2] Other sources suggest significantly higher draw weights. The original draw forces of examples from the Mary Rose are estimated by Robert Hardy at 150–160 lbf (670–710 N) at a 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length; the full range of draw weights was between 100–185 lbf (440–820 N).[9] The 30-inch (76.2 cm) draw length was used because that is the length allowed by the arrows commonly found on the Mary Rose.
>none of these estimates even comes close to the 1000 lb draw strength of many crossbows
>the superior draw strength is possible due to mechanical advantage while loading: levers, gear cranks, etc.
>the vastly higher draw strength would guarantee higher projectile velocity and consequently longer range

you're only talking about the shitty hand-loaded low quality crossbows, not the mechanically assisted loading ones

Attached: hand_crank.jpg (500x276, 20K)

what's that head style called? it's not bodkin is it?

She charges ye olde mosque.... with her assault bow.

Attached: fast_archer.gif (330x248, 1.99M)

I have a longbow.

If I were to hand you a 150 pound longbow and tell you to hit a target at 20 meters or I'll shoot you in the face with a shotgun you'd be dead. That's the primary difference between a bow and a crossbow.

Shoot the horse they have big heads

I have an 80lb longbow. Not easy to draw and shoot well. A lot of training is needed.

Even your medium crosbow could have better draw weight since you can use better muscle groups (by pulling it up and anchoring it down with your legs) and because you can only do it once vs hold the tension for aiming

Attached: leafbait.png (625x626, 66K)

Longbows were a far better battle-weapon. By far. But the longbowman had to be well trained and strong.

bodkin is the mail one.
sort of.
it depends on the length for what its for.
the short one is for punching through armour.
the long one for going through links and into the gamberson.
the long ones tend to deflect off plate more.
they both get called bodkin.

>Remember lads, subscribe to Lindybeige

Didn't their peasants start killing people with farming tools though.
What was that weapon's name that they made from a sickle.

How do you know it is not the Muslim ban that made it peaceful?

he was not counting the tyrannical government stealing all wealth as crime.

Or the samurais raping and honour killing everyone, which was also not a crime

lol, that's a cheap repro. It's probably not even hardened. The actual churburg 13 breastplate is.
Eve then you can see the effectiveness of that particular shape.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt