I disagree. It is about training costs, not lethality. Go ask any deer in your local woods.

They did not bother with amputation back then because it was better to mercy kill someone that was going to die anyway.

If you wish to continue this argument let us move it to Email.

Thanks!

John

- ----------
From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu[SMTP:c558382@showme.missouri.edu]
Reply To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 1998 2:44 PM
To: 'birthright@MPGN.COM'
Subject: RE: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!

Armor is effective against bows. It was effective for the Hoplites at
Marathon and Plataea, for legoniars in inumerable campaigns, and though
the rise of the longbow and better crossbows led to the shift from chain
to plate mail, that was effective. A 75 caliber ball penetrates armor and
destroys the internal structure of the human body. That explains the rise
in amputation during the are of black powder.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, John Campbell wrote:

> So why don't other missile weapons do damage like that? Ever consider the
> cross sectional force of a metal tipped arrow? I know deer that have.
> You do this for guns you gotta do it for all missiles
>
>
> John
>
> ----------
> on Jan 8, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> Secondly, fire arms score four kinds of hits- miss, light wound
> (maybe d12 damage), severe wounds (maybe 9d4), and kills (save vs death
> magic to suffer merely 50 hps damage). You will note that nobles stopped
> fighting in the c16, and started commanding the Bob bartenders of the
> army. A lifetime of combat training is meaningless in the face of a 75
> calibre ball of lead with your name on it.