invincible army???

[Cheetah]

What do you guys/gals think which nation will have an invincible army? -like the mongols http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

perhaps the british with their longbowmen?
perpahs the holy roman empire with its teutonic knights?
perhaps the french with their norman knights?
perphaps the saracens with their camel lighters? ...err.. i mean camel riders

or perhaps it will be well balanced??? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif

btw would the norman knights be "french"?

[Vlad The Impaler]

I hope that will be well balanced;in this way the game will be more fun and challenging;btw..mongols arent invincible; their cavalry is great but they arent invincible
saracens didnt use camels and i think/hope that their unique troop will be camels warriors; maybe saracen infantry as i saw in a pic about tha game;
and all the troups u mentioned have countertroops
longbowmen can be beaten by fast cavalry , and so on...

[MagyarKhans Cham]

where u live in hungary cheetah?

------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

[theforce]

The Byzantine empire had "liquid fire" that was a pain for many nations who happent to siege the city. Also there were on platforms in the see, too.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html

[evilc]

longbowmen better fire horizontally at close range...

[Cheetah]

Quote where u live in hungary cheetah?[/QUOTE]

very near to the capital to the north near the local train (HEV)

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

Quote Originally posted by Vlad The Impaler:
longbowmen can be beaten by fast cavalry , and so on...[/QUOTE]

As er proven at Agincourt?? longbowmen behind stakes are pretty much invincible until the exhaust their arrow supply.



------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[Vlad The Impaler]

Toda u have an obsession with that archers
yes they fight great there but there was hundred of battles ; medieval history have a lot of war battles and kinda troops;
i think at Agincourt the englishmen win beacuse the french have lousy generals ;and finnaly the french throw them over the channel;
yes..longbowmen were great but there are a lot of other troops that fight even better; janissaries conquer Constantinopole;than the mamelukes,teutonic knights,hungarian cavalry ...and more that i dont remember now;to be a great game i think it requires a great diversity.not only longbowmen

[Cheetah]

Sshhh, Toda! you have beaten me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

btw,

Quote i think at Agincourt the englishmen win beacuse the french have lousy generals [/QUOTE]

and at Potiers, and at Crecy??? the french did never defeat the english in a pitched battle.

Quote and finnaly the french throw them over the channel;[/QUOTE]

yes, but I think it was because they lost the war of attrition and not because they were defeated in any open battle.

[Vlad The Impaler]

a defeat is a defeat; and a win is a win; and taking lands is a win in that case

[theforce]

Winning can be fatal sometimes. Let the Russian Revolution be an example to this.

------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html

[MagyarKhans Cham]

u know the place Muhi? and its history?

------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

[Cheetah]

who, me? yes, I know.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

that reminds me magy finished the site about Mohi/Muhi yet???

------------------
Grand Master of
The Knights Templar
"non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomine tuo da gloriam"

[Vlad The Impaler]

yes Cheetah ; is lousy to attack frontaly an fortified position; thats what i was saying; u can maneuver or exhaust the enemy

[Whitey]

who said mongols wern't invincible?

I'm not as 'mongophile' as some here but had Ogadai lived another two or three years, europe would have been over-run just as easily as everywhere else had been...

think of the time period...1240's...

The Mongols were defeated by the Mamelukes in the 1260's true, but at Ain Jalut most of the Mongol army was made up of Turks, same with the Mameluke army, who were trained to fight to a much higher standard than their cousins on the Mongol side. The Mongolian army in europe in the early 1240's was apparently far larger and was more 'Mongol'...After destroying two christain armies at Liegnitz and on the river Sajo using two different armies of their own and within days of each other. Are we to believe that the armies raised the year after in France and Germany would have fared any better?

There was a reason why the mongols caused terror, all the stories were true

------------------
"Mon centre cède du terrain, ma droite se replie. Situation excellente. J'attaque!"
- Foch

[ShadesWolf]

The english Longbowmen were brilliant and unique. They only became extinct with the intro of guns onto the battle field.

There was no defence against them, crossbow had a less range, so no artillery on the battlefield could match them.

Ok cav were good, but the longbow was protected by pikemen. So cav became ineffective.

[solypsist]

the Teutons with their panzers might unbalance the game a little

[Cheetah]

Quote yes Cheetah ; is lousy to attack frontaly an fortified position; thats what i was saying; u can maneuver or exhaust the enemy[/QUOTE]

Ok, Vlad. You won, french generals were lousy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

...but, the english were pretty much invincinble http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif Here is a quote from the book "The battles that changed history" written by Fletcher Pratt.

"There existed at that time no real method of dealing with the English hedgehog of armed men. No armour would keep out a shaft from an English longbow; it fired so rapidly and had such range that other hand bore missile weapons could not be brought against it and the archers were so mobile that heavier weapons were useless. [...] The total result was that an English army in the terrain were it operated was incomparebly the best in Europe, and fully aware of the fact."

[Cheetah]

Quote I'm not as 'mongophile' as some here but had Ogadai lived another two or three years, europe would have been over-run just as easily as everywhere else had been...
[/QUOTE]

...over-run perhaps, but not conquered.

The grassland of western Eurpoe were far too small for the mongol armies. Even the plains of Hungary could not sustain a mongal army on the long term. Think of it, 40000 warriors means at least a 100000 of horses! Russia and Poland were easy, big plains, plenty to eat for the horses.
That is why Attila's huns stopped in the carpatian basin and went no further, that is why the magyars stopped here and went no further and that is why the mongols retreated from Hungary once for all.

btw, I agree with you Whitey that the mongols too were pretty much invincible in an open battle. Esp. for those who meet them at the first time. Sadly, in most cases there were no rematch! What an unfair attitude http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Vlad The Impaler]

so u keed saying that longbowmen were invincible ; okay http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[evilc]

i don't care if thery WERE ever or not beaten, i just care if they are good in the game.

[Flame of Udun]

Invincible army? Ok Longbowmen with Pikemen as backup...

[Vlad The Impaler]

they were beaten; they will be great in the game http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[St Stephen]

This is for Cheetah only!

Szervusz!Jo latni hazafiakat otthonrol a jo kis Magyarorszagbol! Igazan hianyoznak a magyar lanyok!!!

A legjobbakat neked egy Americaban elo Hazafitol!

[MagyarKhans Cham]

Jo napot Stephen and Cheetah

Guys i can tell u that MagyarKhan, Khan of Khans, our Great Khan, is from hungarian origin, Kapuvar, between Gyor and Sopron.

i have some pics of Muhi at
www.mongols.club.tip.nl (http://www.mongols.club.tip.nl)
http://home-4.worldonline.nl/%7Et543201/web-mongol/mongol-mohi.htm

--------------------------------------
The Central Asian composite bow, like comparable weapons used by Middle Eastern and some eastern European armies, was an extremely sophisticated weapon. It needed much greater strength to pull than the famous English longbow. But, although it was much shorter, and consequently suitable for use on horseback, it had an equally long draw right back to the archer's cheek. The composite bow also gave a much more regular release of tension when loosed and thus its arrows had about twice the range, with a flatter trajectory and greater accuracy, than English infantry bows. It appears, in fact, that whereas the penetrating power of the longbow depended upon the arrow's velocity.

Because of this, its effectiveness was comparable to the crossbow which was, however, far slower to operate. Small wonder that it took a long time for gunpowder to have much impact upon the steppes and that 'Tartar' horse-arches from the Crimea, not to mention Ottoman Turks, were still campaigning effectively across eastern Europe well into the seventeenth century. The Mongol or Turkish version of the Asiatic composite bow was apparently shorter than the 'Scythian' type still used in Byzantium and Russia. But, being even shorter for use on horseback, it was thicker inspection and needed even greater strength to pull-often more than 45 kg of tension. Different peoples used different materials in the construction of their composite bows, though all were built around a wooden core. Many central Asian nomads used four pieces of ram's horn, whereas the Chinese incorporated a single large piece of water-buffalo horn. The belly of the bow consisted of strands of sinew, the Chinese using spinal sinew, the Muslims the Achilles tendon and the nomads whatever they could obtain.

----------------------------------------

Our historians are working on texts where they compare longbow range and power with the mongol composite bows. I hope the ourtcome wont dissapoint u shadeswolf http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

GALLOP GALLOP GALLOP


------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

[St Stephen]

I knew you must be a hungarian origin after your name!
Szia!Megszeretnelek hivni beneteket Cheetaht beleertve az offital web site forumra(ha termeszetesen meg nem voltatok) ahol probalok harcot vivni a Magyarok mellet es erdekeben!En Szolnokrol vagyok de Californiaban elek jelenleg. Mas, keresek egy clan-t ahova be tudnak lepni ha MTW kijon!A .com forumon King Stephen neven futok!
Viszont hallasra!

St. Stephen

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 01-28-2002).]

[Whitey]

I never thought I'd live to see the day - a thread at the Dojo hijacked by Hungarians... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Mon centre cède du terrain, ma droite se replie. Situation excellente. J'attaque!"
- Foch

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by Whitey:
I never thought I'd live to see the day, a thread at the Dojo hijacked by Hungarians... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]

LOL. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
No harms done.We just try to gather our forces!That's all!You know we are few but highly trained and motivated http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif!

I apologize for the different language but this is the only way to find out who is the real thing!Sorry!

My answer to Cheetah question is that the invincible army will be my magyar warriors if Hungary will be a playable faction!

To take the question seriously there is no invincible army only invincible general!As history showed us many time in the past!


[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 01-28-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 01-28-2002).]

[Vlad The Impaler]

hijacked LOL
it wasnt polite anyway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Cheetah]

sorry guys, a bit more "hijacking"

Üdvözöllek István, és üdvözletem a Nagy Khannak és szorgalmas hírvivõjének. Mindig is furcsálottam, hogy miért hívják a mongolok nagy Khanját magyarnak, de így érthetõ. István, én is remélem, hogy a magyarok választhatóak lesznek, habár a portyázásokról és az állam alapításról így is lemaradunk.

back to topic. no one puts his/her money on the camel riders? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Vlad The Impaler]

got me point ?

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Vlad, i am not sure but it looked like you are flaming Cheetah in some way.

If you we're don't! If not sorry for deleting your post

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[Vlad The Impaler]

yes Kuma one of the words was ...in an international language http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
but the phrase hast any sense anyway ..but u did right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
apologize if i overreacted but i think i made my point http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Cheetah]

Vlad,
I agree with you, you indeed overreacted http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
I used hungarian because I was adressed in hungarian, and not because I wanted to insult you or anyone else.

I think that good manners demands:
1) to reply when you are adressed;
2) preferably reply in the language in which you were adressed;
3) to let the others do so.

all the best,
Cheetah

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Vlad , Cheetah play nice now and get on topic please....

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[evilc]

invinsible army; won't be allowed surely, not point playing then, but then you can always make your own, the point of the game.

[JAG]

people think that if the british had used longbows in the battle of waterloo we would have lost far less men even at this period in history . .as the range was that of a musket and the firepower (damage, rate of fire) was that of more damage than the musket. . . (obviously all the battles leading to this aswell . . ) after about 1815 tho the longbow prolly wouldnt have had a chance. . certainly by 1860's (american cival war) . .

anyway wanted to have my peice about the british longbow. . INVINCIBLE!

------------------
Lets rain bullets on them. . but make sure you bring the Umberella!


WarlordWarrior

[St Stephen]

Hi Cheetah!
This time I'll use English so we won't hurt anyone feelings.This is the last thing we want do we!
However I must take this opportunity to address all of you here and say that this forum really way below the quality I used too on the official web site forum.The people here are sarcastic and kind of boring.Many of you here thinks that if you have 2000 post it's really mean something but trust me it's one thing to talking and something else to saying anything worthwhile listening too!The only reason I signed up for this forum because I find two Hungarian guy here so I thought I'd test them if they are the real deal and write to them in our own language but look what happened the moderator have to delayed some post from a guy who probably just being nice and giving me a warm welcome!I rarely see a long intellectually interesting post here, most of you answering in few word and if a guy comes along and actually have a interesting thing to say or disgust your being sarcastic right a way!

Look I'm sorry if I hurt anyone feelings here but this is how I feel about this forum right now. I don't mean to do this to you guys especially because I know there are many smart and cool guy posting here who worth listening too.

Well anyway I don't think my post will be here for long, the censorship looks very tough here too.

Oh , and jump right back to the topic ,well Cheetah I don't think the camel warriors going to be very strong against the infantry.I think they will be good against calvary only and perhaps artery!


My apologizes to you all!? You wanted English I gave you English!

[JAG]

sorry st.stephen i really do misunderstand ur post. . i made a perfectly viable post. . which is very true . .or that i see as true. . if u want to prove me wrong by all means! but dont just flip like that!

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by JAG:
sorry st.stephen i really do misunderstand ur post. . i made a perfectly viable post. . which is very true . .or that i see as true. . if u want to prove me wrong by all means! but dont just flip like that!
[/QUOTE]

Dear JAG!

I'm not talking about you !I'm talking general.If you read a little bit more of this topic (something before your post) you will undestand(I hope?)!

There is a big different between crying and to have a opinion! Agree????

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 02-03-2002).]

[Flame of Udun]

I have absolutely NO idea whats going on http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[JAG]

yes i know what happened earlier in the thread and i think that it was wrong and he had no right to have a go at u just because of u speaking in a different language to the one he preferes. . ther is no law that says everything has to be in english . .well i dont know of one. . just when u refered to the 2000 posts thing it seemed like that was directed towards me! . . oh and my sig the thing about crying has nothing to do with u whatsoever it is a general thing! hehe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[St Stephen]

Thanks for the undestanding JAG!

I don't want to sound like a a**hole and a mean person, I just hate when people talking without saying anything!

Anyway I like visiting here because I still can get great info on MTW and learn from you (all) time to time.

Tell me something(to go back to the topic)why every English guy I meet think that the longbowmen were invincible.I think with the right tactics you can overcome them quite easily.However I admit of cours that history proved you correct!

[JAG]

well i think the reason that so many english ppl (and welsh . . best bowmen often welsh) . think that the longbowmen were invincible is for the fast that we won so many great victories with little loss and it made us into the power we are today really. . without the middle ages who knows what england and great britian would be in the world .. remember we only 'ikkle http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

maybe with the right tactics enemies would have got past the bows but the french did have many opertunities! maybe they r not a good example as *some* say that they did not have good generals at the time . .but i am still undecided. .

i think for example at crecy that if the french crossbowmen (not actually french but the nationality is beyond me at the moment), had been allowed to take a few hours longer in preperation to allow them to have thier protective shields (which were still not brilliant against the lonbowmen) the french may well have won that fight and beaten the english off at the beginning of the 100 years war! remember the english were hard on supplies then and they did not have many arrows left as the arrows had to be shipped over from england!

anyway enough of me, i still find it hard to believe that anything was more destructive, ruleing and powerful during the middle ages!

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Flame of Udun]

Whats a longbow compared to my American M-16? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif nah j/k i love the Longbow

[Whitey]

the Longbow was the best bow in Western Europe at that time, full stop.

In itself that doesn't mean that its invincible, but as a weapon it was un-paralelled in its field at a time when the prevailing manner of warfare could not cope with such a rise in the quality of missile troops - of course it could be got around if mis-used, but Ill tell ya what - I'd prefer an English army of 1400 to any other one in Europe, although I'm not sure about the Mongol compisite bow and its relative power I believe the Longbow had the edge in both range and accuracy - I'd hazard a guess that one of the most popular armies will include longbowmen - its a question of taste, I wouldn't want to take them out onto the steppe to fight nomads (but then I wouldn't take any army out to do that), but in the fields of western europe against the chivalry of France and Germany - I wouldn't be without them

------------------
"Situation excellente. J'attaque!"

[JAG]

whitey nice . . it will be interesting to see tactics in the game as most players i would imagine will have longbowmen . . if they r anything like as deadly as reality. . it will be very intresting to see how magy's mongol armies will get past them! etc. .

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[evilc]

he won't go past them, he'll go through them.

[Cheetah]

we will see, we will see .... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

I always wondered who whould have won. Let's say an english army of 40000 men strong - with 25000 longbowmen http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif against a mongol army of 40000 man strong ??? too bad the the english could probably never field an army of that size ...

[Flame of Udun]

Depends who is attacking/defending http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif also the basic question: Who has the high ground, if the english do...

[JAG]

yes we (english) were deedly from high ground . .(with safe flanks . . e.g. woods) ..

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Jaguara]

I tell you though,

NOTHING would be more satisfying than getting a band of swordsmen into a pack of poorly deployed longbowmen...can you say massacre? Did the Scots not accomplish this on at least one occasion?

If the strategy part of the game is modelled well, then Longbowmen should only be trainable in certain areas, and should carry a heavy cost. As I recall, archers were trained from a very young age. Any loss on the field was a disaster. One could 'easily' replace swordsmen, and even to some degree cavalry...but longbowmen were another issue.

As for the mongols...

A troop of longbowmen, protected by pikes, in the wooded lands of Western Europe could massacre a much larger force of Mongols...but I believe we are speaking of troops from different ages now arn't we?

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by JAG:
people think that if the british had used longbows in the battle of waterloo we would have lost far less men even at this period in history . .as the range was that of a musket and the firepower (damage, rate of fire) was that of more damage than the musket. . . (obviously all the battles leading to this aswell . . ) after about 1815 tho the longbow prolly wouldnt have had a chance. . certainly by 1860's (american cival war) . .

anyway wanted to have my peice about the british longbow. . INVINCIBLE!
[/QUOTE]

JAG makes a good point here. Until the development of the rifle, the bow, in the hands of a well trained archer, is far more accurate than early firarms.

The problem is, as I implied earlier, that longbowmen began training at a very young age, and took many years to be 'ready'. On the other hand, musket troops could be trained in a matter of months...less if necessary.

As for the battle of waterloo...were there even any longbowmen left in Britain at that time? Certainly not in the numbers that would be required to defeat Napoleon. Perhaps one or two units could have been depolyed at best...hardly enough to make a real impact. Still, had they been available in significant numbers, the point you made seems valid.

Jaguara

[MagyarKhans Cham]

Quote A troop of longbowmen, protected by pikes, in the wooded lands of Western Europe could massacre a much larger force of Mongols...but I believe we are speaking of troops from different ages now arn't we?[/QUOTE]

some quotes from the mongol site at www.mongols.club.tip.nl... (http://www.mongols.club.tip.nl...)

"A stone monument raised during Chinggis Khaan times states that a marksman named Esunkhei hit a target at 355 ald or more than 500 meters distance. People of that time were very strong and bows were well made. Nowadays, shooting half of this distance would be a top record. To shoot that far, one would need special lightweight arrows. Today we use 60-72 gram arrows and this is 10 times heavier than those needed for distant shooting. With proper arrows it will be possible to shoot for as far as 350 meters," says Suhbaatar.

Furthermore it would be extreme naiev to think that mongols would rush into a wall of spikes with archers behind it. Except from the human shield of slaves.
Mongols were higly practical and didnt solve problems by orthodox solutions only. imo opinion a english army wouldnt be able to beat an uqeual sized mongol army. But as we know, mongols were bad at sea so crossing the channel could be the english saviour http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
Quote I gallop messages around, dont track me I can bring war as well[/QUOTE]

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by MagyarKhans Cham:
"A stone monument raised during Chinggis Khaan times states that a marksman named Esunkhei hit a target at 355 ald or more than 500 meters distance. People of that time were very strong and bows were well made. Nowadays, shooting half of this distance would be a top record. To shoot that far, one would need special lightweight arrows. Today we use 60-72 gram arrows and this is 10 times heavier than those needed for distant shooting. With proper arrows it will be possible to shoot for as far as 350 meters," says Suhbaatar.
[/QUOTE]

That may be so...or perhaps the claim is somewhat exaggerated? Rumor was a powerful force at the time (and still is today). A 6 foot tall man becomes seven feet. One hundred attackers becomes one thousand...

In any case...a 500 meter shot with a bow is impressive. It is hard enough with a modern rifle...depending on the target.

You mention that a modern bow shot of 350 meters is record-breaking...well that is on level ground, what if the shot in question was from a cliff-side or hilltop, thus adding considerably to the potential range? That could explain the 500 meters, could it not?

Regardless...I agree that the mongols would not likely charge pike-protected infantry head on...but it all depends on the circumstances of battle. The scenario I gave, would be ideal for the English...a strong position, from where they can withdraw into the woods...

Similarly, if caught in the open, it is likely that the mongols could defeat a larger number of English troops.

[evilc]

people all over the world lived slightly harder lives than us, and so were a lot stronger than us. Longbowmen would seem like superhuman to use, as would the mongols, who might well have been stronger, but i dont know.

[This message has been edited by evilc (edited 02-06-2002).]

[Cheetah]

i just butt in to make justice. after all cheetahs are well know for their ability to make fair judgment http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

so, both Jaguara and Chammy is right. the english would have defeted the mongols in a pitched battle, but the mongols were cunning enough not to charge head on such a formidable defence.

so, who would won? dunno...
WHO asked this stupid question ?!?!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Sir Chauncy]

Well I feel it is only fair that you all recieve the benifits of my massive intellect so I can put you right on one or two points.
Firstly, there is still a law that exists in the UK that every man must fire at least three arrows before breakfast in the morning. Passed By Henry the 3rd. So because every man in the conutry would have been more than able to use a longbow, losing a couple wouldn't really have been all that bad.
The other thing I was going to say was that the Mongols may have been great and powerful, but what makes you think they could have 'beaten' an army of pike men and archers. If the archers are in the middle of the pikemen then they can't really be touched and, though the horsemen are far faster than those on foot, if they cannot fight them, then they cannot win. Also I think that the way archers were trained was different as well. For long range did the Europeans not just shoot a volley into the air wheras the Asian equivalent would aim at one man until he fell down?

Also, if you look in the Guiness book of records you will see that the longest that an arrow has ever been fired accurately is over a kilometre. Sorry to destroy that 500 metre record breaker theory.

Again what are you people talking about with longbow men in the battle of waterloo. Muskets are far superiour to any bow at this time it is why every country in the world that could use it, Did. With the strange exception of Japan. There simply weren't any longbow units around at the time. Bear in mind that the standing professional army had not come to fruition yet. It was set up after the civil war in Britain. And once you have lots of money you by the best weapons. With muskets you don't really aim either, right up until the first world war, you just brought you rifle up in a long line and fired en masse. If you hit something, great, if not, no problem, just fire again.

This has come out a little blunt on screen having read over it again. The moments where I call myself clever are supposed to be funny.

Ha ha... see?

[This message has been edited by Sir Chauncy (edited 02-07-2002).]

[JAG]

sir chauncey sorry but load of rubbish about how good u make the muskets to be at that time. . they were used becasue they were devastating at close range and any1 could pull the trigger! i totally agree with jaguar the only reason what i said would be oin doubt was the fact that less and less longbowmen were being trained in britian, tho even now u can find a few specialists who can shoot the longbow as well as men from the middle ages. .

it was not until the 1860's and the american civil war. . (and after it into the mexican wars) that guns became faster to use longer range and more devastating. . it has been recorded tho that in a dual of 2 enemy units (a dual between units was that each would take in turns to fire a volley into the enemy ranks at the closest of ranges and the winning side was the side which caused more deaths), each side fired a volley and only 6 men were killed and that is including both sides! . . this story comes from around the 1820's . .

back to the 100 years war etc . .the longbowmen were hated by the enemies and whenever a bowmen was caught by the enemy they would suffer huge torture. . starting with the cutting off the index finger and middle finger on the firing hand and ending in the cutting off the head. .

cham u r far too biased . .maybe u could say that for me too . . but i only speak through knowlege i have gainded through many sources. . yes the mongols would have found a clever way to come up against the english army at that point in history BUT you are trying to sya . . (with ur bowman story) that the mongols would have been more devastating at range?! Never! . .no force could stand up to the longbow!

anyway . . this an intresting thread. .

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

"anyway . . this an intresting thread. ."-Jag.

Sure is!



------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[evilc]

lol, if english met mongols i can see a long stand off between foot english troops ending in starvation or a charge, but i am NOT an expert

[Sir Chauncy]

Whoa there. I seem to be giving the wrong impression. The point I was trying to make was that the English would have won in open battle. If you had a predominantly horsey army and the enemy had an army consisting of spearmen, would you charge them? You would be mad to do so, and the mongols really wouldn't have. However, if within this impregnable core you had something that could fire some distance and really hurt you when it hit, would you stay out of range? So you can't beat them close up and can't beat them at a distance. With all of this taken into account, if the mongols could not beat the English in open battle would they not have just engaged in someform of night time hit and run? I don't know I am only speculating.
But I think my point about musketmen being superiour to Longbowmen still holds. Why would you get rid of a better weapon and replace it with a poor one? You have said yourself that the musket was devastating at Short range, and it was. Maybe the increase in the use of breast plate was leasening the effect of the Bow?
I don't know when the rifled barrel started to come into operation either, but I knew it was more than in service during the american Civil war, so that is why I cited that. I don't know if it was available during the battle of waterloo or not but I know for a fact that people used to just form lines and shoot, since the 1700s right up until the 2nd world war. The longbow started going out of fashion almost as soon as the English civil war had ended. I don't however, know enough about the tactics used in that war to be able to say what sort of weapons they used with any degree of accuracy or how effective they were.
As far as I can tell, the longbow wasn't as good as the musket, either through the amount of training required to use it or through penetrating power. It went out of fashion and I am certain it wasn't a standard army issue weapon in Napoleans time.
I am keen to here what you have to say. I really loved the idea of 2 units taking pot shots and only taking out 6 people. Knowing how crap their aim was they may have been gunned down by their own side http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[JAG]

hehe yeah i laughed at the story when i read it hehe madness! . .about the lonbow effectiveness against armour. . LOL there was a test recently (hm within the past 5 years), that tested what things could go clean through a bullet jacket. . a knife didnt work handguns didnt, rifles didnt work or smg's but the one thing that did work was a longbowman and his arrows! . . they went clean through the armour! . .but then again they r not designed to stop arrows http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif . . but it shows just how powerful the longbow was/is. . so i doubt the breastplates were a problem . . i know this coz one of my m8's used to be one of the best in the country when he was growing up at archery. . i know archery have sights help with loads of stuff but still he knew his stuff and he read loads about archery and the longbow. . he could pull a full bow back when he was 11 . . (adult bow that is. . main reason he can do this beacause he grew up too early. . so to speak his hormones developed much faster he grew faster etc. . he started pubity at 9 . . he was 6ft 2inches at 13. .since then he been on steroid tables things and is now at 17 6ft 5 inches. .)

anyway . . the longbow died out mainly because as we have stated b4 it was just so dam hard to gain experiance in and be able to use it properly!. . it took a very very long time for an englishman to fire a full longbow and had to learn from a very very young age. . the musket was powerful and took no training like that at all! . .

well i am meeting some of my m8's who r history buffs like me tonight and i will ask thier opinions on this. . and get back to u guys . . ok http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
[I] crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Morayin]

one phrase describes the french; Every game has to have a loser, war is the greatest game of all. The French will never win, or rarely, because they wont train troops, use "War Tricks" that are 2000 years old, and their the french for God's sake, they have been on 160 year losing streak!!!!!

------------------
He who fight alone on two front is a fool, he who fight on two fronts with an ally trusts too much. He who fight on two fronts with a brother by his side is a great man indeed.
-General Agrippa to Octavian-

All plans will inevitablly fail, dont plan for success, plan for failure.
-De Saxe-

The plan changes the moment the fisrt arrow leaves the bow
-Mat Cauthon (Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time")

Shen an Calhar!!! Asha Mai'Aes ver'hae!!!

[Morayin]

and as for the bow, most men did not train for its use, it was fired en masse at an enemy. The claims of a hail of arrows blanketing the sky was not false. You dont need accuracy or training to blanket an area with arrows.

------------------
He who fight alone on two front is a fool, he who fight on two fronts with an ally trusts too much. He who fight on two fronts with a brother by his side is a great man indeed.
-General Agrippa to Octavian-

All plans will inevitablly fail, dont plan for success, plan for failure.
-De Saxe-

The plan changes the moment the fisrt arrow leaves the bow
-Mat Cauthon (Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time")

Shen an Calhar!!! Asha Mai'Aes ver'hae!!!

[Whitey]

Longbow accuracy - it could go through plate armour at 200 yards, it was effective at a maximum range against unarmoured objects at roughly 400 yards, apparently 80-100 lb was the average force a longbow could exert...

at point plank it could put an arrow in one side and out the other of heavy armour.

[JAG]

Quote Originally posted by Morayin:
and as for the bow, most men did not train for its use, it was fired en masse at an enemy. The claims of a hail of arrows blanketing the sky was not false. You dont need accuracy or training to blanket an area with arrows.

[/QUOTE]

really dont get me startet again . . all i need to say is that you are wrong. . and i will leave it as that . . . ok i will say a bit . .there was indeed blankets of arrows . that u r correct . .but the no accuracy part is totally wrong. . there was great accuracy . . a longbowman could pick a target and get it from huge distances!


------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[JAG]

Quote Originally posted by Morayin:
one phrase describes the french; Every game has to have a loser, war is the greatest game of all. The French will never win, or rarely, because they wont train troops, use "War Tricks" that are 2000 years old, and their the french for God's sake, they have been on 160 year losing streak!!!!!

[/QUOTE]

100 years war. . . Napolean. . . WW1



------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by Sir Chauncy:
Why would you get rid of a better weapon and replace it with a poor one? You have said yourself that the musket was devastating at Short range, and it was. ... The longbow started going out of fashion almost as soon as the English civil war had ended.[/QUOTE]

This is a silly question. It has been answered several times here. Muskets were cheap and required almost no training to use. So to raise an army all you had to do was run a few press-men through town and grab a few hundred guys, train them for a weekend and send them to the front (granted I am exaggerating a bit here). Longbowmen took years to train properly, and thus were in short supply. It takes talent to use a longbow properly - not just anyone can be trained to use one. Then to field these valuable troops to have them eventually slaughtered by musketfire - even if they take out 3 or 4 times their number, the loss is too costly. Musketmen were literally a dime a dozen. Longbowmen were worth their weight in gold.

The longbowmen in waterloo concept was purely hypothetical, as I stated, there would not have been near enough decent longbowmen in all of England to field a decent force. If there had been...it could have been very effective. From what I recall, a musket unit was considered very well drilled if it could fire three rounds per minute...compare that with the number of arrows that could be fired in the same time.

[Jaguara]

As for Mongols vs English.

My previous example was in a set situation in which all is in favor of English troops. To attack such a position, the Mongols would require a much larger force than the English. I don't think this is rocket science, nor an attack on the capabilities of the mongols.

I would expect that an attack would involve an attack by infantry forces from Mongol vassals, with cavalry not charging until the front was chaotic. Thus eliminating the fear of the pikes against the cavalry somewhat. A lot would come down to luck and the talent of the individual generals. The Mongols would need numerical superiority because the casualties in the footmen would likely be very high...they would have to survive advancing against archers, then fight the English footmen.

Just one scenario folks.

[Whitey]

aye - 10 aimed shots per min was expected from a decent longbowman!

[Leet Eriksson]

the english would lose the first time as any nation did but will win the second time as any nation did!very simple get an army of mongols they beat the english but get a rematch and the mongols are french toast.its very easy to learn the mongolian tactics we beated them the second time through hehehehe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[JAG]

Jaguara nice posts. . ehhe i tried to tell 'em too http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

u said 3 shots a minute. . hehe that was considered a brilliant firing rate! . . the british (who were the best at rapid firing) could only do it just . . 2 rounds per minute was the norm . . that what the french fired at (most of them) . .if i remember correctly . .

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Leet Eriksson]

the chinese fired faster three shots a second(Cho Ko Nu crossbow)!

[Jaguara]

Actually, JAG is more in line with firing rates for regular troops...the three shots per minute I quoted would be considered elite troops.

Anyone here who used to watch the "Sharpe" TV series? It was supposedly bnig in the UK, though it got only limited play over here. I can still see Sean Bean chiding an English squad put under his command...telling them that to win they would need to shoot three rounds a minute...and they all had this freaked look on their faces...heh.

[JAG]

i have seent he series and indeed read 1 or 2 of the books. . bernard cornwell rights them . . brilliant books!!! the books r much (i mean hugely) more impressive than the tv series. . speaking about bernard cornwell books. . get his american cival war series. . they are the best books i have ever read . . .fantastic. . must have read them each (there r 4) . .bout 4 times . . . they go from bull run then in chronilogical order. . he is writing more. . here r books so far . .. rebel, copperhead,battle flag, the bloody ground. . look out 4 them . . top notch!

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Jaguara]

JAG,

Please forgive this post, but I cannot help but notice that you have been posting a significant amount of actually useful information lately. In fact, I cannot recall seeing any frivolent posts from you in the last week or so...You had better watch out or the admins may just decide to take away your 'spammer' icon!

Oh, and sorry Kuma for the thread hijack (perhaps I am looking to inherit JAG's icon?) http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Hey im just the mod here, these are not my threads but the patrons (you included because you do not mod in this forum). My job here is mainly PR and some policing (the less possible, i always hope).

I read all the posts though, i appreciate when they are interesting as this thread but i think i am repeating myself here.

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[This message has been edited by Sir Kuma of The Org (edited 02-20-2002).]

[JAG]

hehe jaguar . . i indeed am a spammer at heart . .BUT . .i am starting to think there no point in spamming anymore. . but even more importantly . .i am a history buff (in napoleonic, american civil war time frame). . so this thread was very easy to write about. . i enjoy very much reading about history and writing my own opinions about them . . *shrugs* some call it sad. . i call it knowing ur past http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Grim]

Even in the movie "Glory" (American civil war) we can see the captain come up to one of his soldiers and ask him to fire 3 round/minute while emptying his revolver near him to panic the soldier. So even in this era the 3/min mark is considered, maybe not "good", but certainly "desirable".

------------------
"Je vous repondrai par la bouche de mes canons"
-Frontenac
(I will answer you with the blast of my canons)
-Trad. libre

[Leet Eriksson]

Gatling guns are supposed to be the fastest in their time hehehehe the first machine gun ever created(i think)was indeed very fast don't remember but machine guns usually empty 200 bullets in one or 2 minutes(modern machine guns)

[Jaguara]

JAG,

I don't think you will find many on this forum who will think your interest in history is 'sad'. Quite the opposite. Keep in mind that those same people who call your interest 'sad', probably spend 4 hours a day watching dumbass sit-coms...that's what I call 'sad'!

And, for the record, I am glad to see this side of you.

Jaguara

[Leet Eriksson]

hey i spend 4 hours watching sitcom http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif jk i always goto the MTW and org.forums and talk trash and brag about Islamic history(and some mongolian if i remember there was an ilkhanate if persia who where mongols).

[JAG]

Quote Originally posted by faisal:
Gatling guns are supposed to be the fastest in their time hehehehe the first machine gun ever created(i think)was indeed very fast don't remember but machine guns usually empty 200 bullets in one or 2 minutes(modern machine guns)[/QUOTE]


but u must remember that with gatling guns at this time they were very very very unreliable .. and the broke normally b4 they emptied all thier rounds. .

thnx jaguar http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif some nice words . . i just enjoy talking bout history as i enjoy it very much. .


------------------
crying is good in a boy . . . it shows they are sensitive

crying is not good in a man . . . it shows they are a wuss!!!!!


WarlordWarrior

[Leet Eriksson]

they look cool though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[JAG]

the best thread ever to be in this forum http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif . . just bringing it up for the new ppl http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The practice of war is much like making love to a woman - an activity full of delights, but none of them predictable and the best of them capable of inflicting grievous injury on a man


WarlordWarrior

[Cheetah]

Agree!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Orda Khan]

ENGLISH longbows were more often drawn by WELSH bowmen and just to show I'm not biased these bows probably did not have half the range of their Mongol counterpart. As mentioned earlier the arrow travels on a flatter line from a Mongol bow as it is released far quicker due to the physics of its double recurve construction. The longbow is basically a D and when drawn is still a D. The shape means that the only way to shoot further is to increase the draw weight. There is a limit plus how long before your archers are exhausted?! They were very effective against massed cavalry or infantry formations in Europe at that time because they simply fired great volleys of arrows into the sky to fall on a large target.Take a look at the traditional longbow stance...aiming upwards. How would they fare against a highly mobile Mongol army with far superior weaponry? I think the pikemen would have been pin cushions long before the longbowmen had the range but then they lacked the accuracy. The day is lost I'm afraid.....Orda

[JAG]

orda i have to say i dis agree with you . . .

yes the long bow was a D shape as you put it but noway was a mongol bow able to outrange the logbow.

the point you make about why the longbow was so effective is spot on tho, the sheer wait of arrows falling from the sky obiteratred enemies at a huge distance (at those times), but what u fail to mention is that therer was a constant stream of arrows befoe the 1st volley of arrows had hit thier targetds there were 2 more alrdy launched and the next one nearly ready, this is probably why they were so disasterous for an enemy.

Remember longbowmen were extreamely fit men and were very strong as they had been brought up with the bow since a very young age so i am sure the point you make about them tiring quickly or losing aim and stregth is false. they would have fired for hours and hours in a row training and gaining in accuracy each time. i am sure someone nowdays who tried to pull a longbow back without having used them before would not even be able to pull it back once but in those time they were fit and strong enough.

yes many of the longbowmen were welsh i have never denied that nor never said there were just english.

anyway http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came."


Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865

[Orda Khan]

Jag you are most accurate in your detailed and chilling description of the longbowman at work. Yes the sky was black with arrows. I was merely pointing out the mechanics of each bow and the way they work,which is very different. The longbow is one piece construction using heartwood and sapwood for strength and flexibility. The Mongol is composite, being some 5 pieces and using many different materials wood, horn and sinew. The action of these bows is light, they have power already stored in the limbs before the draw due to the double recurve shape. The limbs let down on the draw, making a 50 pound draw feel like 30. On release, the arrow is punched out at greater velocity. My Magyar bow at a draw of 50 will out distance a longbow of the same poundage. As for rapid firing, there's a guy in Hungary who can fire 3 arrows in 5 seconds, at 3 different targets, while galloping on horseback! But yes I agree with you that there was nothing else in Europe to match the longbow....Orda (sorry about the Welsh bit.)

[Jaguara]

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
there's a guy in Hungary who can fire 3 arrows in 5 seconds, at 3 different targets, while galloping on horseback![/QUOTE]

And I know a Kung Fu master who can fight 12+ people at once, but that does not mean that every man in China is a one-man army.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

And i know a montrealer that can guzzle down 5 large beers in under a minute, but does not mean that All Montrealers a beer guzzling drunks....Or does it BURP! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Ils sont grands seulement parce que nous sommes à genoux. Alors levons-nous debout!!!

[JAG]

*tut* *tut* mods lowering the standard again! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

but what jagu said is quite right . .so there was a few that were exceptional . .does that outweigh the organisation of the longbowmen and the english army?????

------------------
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came."


Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by Orda Khan:
Jag you are most accurate in your detailed and chilling description of the longbowman at work. Yes the sky was black with arrows. I was merely pointing out the mechanics of each bow and the way they work,which is very different. The longbow is one piece construction using heartwood and sapwood for strength and flexibility. The Mongol is composite, being some 5 pieces and using many different materials wood, horn and sinew. The action of these bows is light, they have power already stored in the limbs before the draw due to the double recurve shape. The limbs let down on the draw, making a 50 pound draw feel like 30. On release, the arrow is punched out at greater velocity. My Magyar bow at a draw of 50 will out distance a longbow of the same poundage. As for rapid firing, there's a guy in Hungary who can fire 3 arrows in 5 seconds, at 3 different targets, while galloping on horseback! But yes I agree with you that there was nothing else in Europe to match the longbow....Orda (sorry about the Welsh bit.) [/QUOTE]

It must be more efficiently transferring the pull energy to that of the arrow flight. But a fifty pound draw should be how much weight it requires to draw the arrow back. A fifty pound draw will feel the same on any bow. It is just the effectiveness of each draw that determines how much of the pull is deployed to the arrow (how much force, in how short a time and how smoothly the acceleration).

As for the energy being prestored in the double recurve this may be true. However the bow must lose shape/strength as it gives energy to the arrow. Over time you would find the bow becoming less effective. This may be countered by some sort of reconstruction, speculating on glues, heat or counterweights to the recurve to restore the energy.

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[Orda Khan]

I am very sorry, I did not realise that the English were the only ones who trained their forces. As for the points about the bows, I am sorry again, but that's the way it is. Ask anyone who does archery about the longbow. They are very overrated, need warming up and are also prone to snapping. I mentioned one individual to highlight what can be achieved today at a time when the bow is used for recreation. In mediaeval times I think it is safe to assume there were more than just a handful who were very proficient. As for draw weights,if you get a chance, try drawing a compound bow to see what happens. The limbs let down here too, the result being a bow that feels much lighter.....Orda

[JAG]

one of my m8's was one of the bet in the country at archery when he was younger i will ask him bout it . . .

------------------
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came."


Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865

[Jaguara]

I think what Orda is trying to say about draw weights is that a 30lbs draw on a composite bow delivers equivalent energy to the arrow as a 50lbs draw longbow...the exact ratios of which I cannot comment on.

However, I can say that Pape is right...a 50lbs draw is a 50lbs draw, regardless of the type of bow. Saying otherwise is like saying that a pound of feathers is lighter than a pound of bricks...

[Jaguara]

Information from other sources...

A quote from another forum discussing this :

Quote The power of the longbow was not it's range (crossbows and composite bows far outranged the longbow), or it's power (which wasn't that great, especially compared to the crossbow). The true power of the longbow was indirect fire (i.e., you could stand behind a bunch of guys with pointy sticks and not get shot back at) and the ability to unstring it (crossbows were usually never unstrung). The reason the ability to unstring a bow is so important is, it allows you to keep the string dry in a rainstorm. It's no coincidence that most English victories (attributed to the longbow) were right after a rainstorm.
[/QUOTE]

However, the sources I have found that givce effective ranges for composite bows tend to state 600 yards with 'target arrows', while heavier 'war arrows' had only about 300 yards. This is quite comparable to the 250 yard range of the English Longbow.

Rate of fire is another question altogether...

Jaguara

[Hirosito]

i find this discussion really interesting thx guys especially because people actually bother finding facts

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[JAG]

Quote Originally posted by Hirosito:
i find this discussion really interesting thx guys especially because people actually bother finding facts

[/QUOTE]

?


------------------
"...but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came."


Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865

[Hirosito]

Quote Originally posted by JAG:
?


[/QUOTE]

?

------------------
Hirosito Mori

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

[Cheetah]

I have found the following info about english and mongols bows. It is from the book "The Devil's Horsemen" written by James Chambers:

"The medieval english longbow had a pull of seventy-five pounds and a range up to two hundred and fifty yards, but the smaller, reflex composite bow used by the mongols had a pull of between a hundred and a hundred and sixty pounds and a range over three hundred and fifty yards."

[Orda Khan]

And composite bows are still made up to 160lb draw strain today. However the quote says some were up to 160 not all 160 ?
I have tried to explain the action of a double recurve, Mongol whatever bow when compared to a longbow but people make fun about feathers and such. Why? If I place 50 pounds on the end of a six foot pole, which would feel heavier....Lifting from other end of pole or lifting holding pole near the weight? Lifting a trash can with arms out straight or close to body? It still same weight!!!
It all depends on physics and mechanics. This I try to explain but laughed at. My boy has a modern take-down recurve bow, draw weight 26 pounds. He struggled to draw 35 on same bow but can draw my bow at 50 pounds. As I said before, the angles and mechanics of the bow makes it a superior weapon in the same way modern compound bows are superior to recurves. This is why they shoot smaller targets from greater distance. Someone said also that longbows could be de strung in rain so they remained efficient. So too could the Mongol bow using either step through method (easy) or while still in the saddle.
As for range, ask the trumpeter from Kracow. While sounding alarm he was shot by a Mongol arrow. Where was the army of Orda and Baidar I doubt it was too close, the noise from all those horses, no alarm would be needed.
These weapons were used by armies in a way that suited the warfare they knew. Which is why Russian and European armies suffered so badly against the Mongols. They met strategy and tactics that were too advanced for them. For similar reasons the Japanese did so badly against first Mongol landing. Seems comical to think of these great warriors riding up to give an account of their military prowess only to be dispatched by a few arrows then up rides the next....and then they retire at the end of the 'battle' asking question 'what's going on?'
When all the dust settles people will see the Mongol army was the greatest the World has seen. They even defeated themselves.
.........Orda

------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."

[bruteztrausen]

the english longbowman were invincible? TAKE INFORMATION ABOUT STIRLING BRIDGE BATTLE
SCOTLAND FOREVER¡

[bruteztrausen]

ONe of the invincibles armies was the GRAND CATALAN COMPANY. They didn¨t lose any battle and they massacred armies of turkish cavalry and bizantine cathaphracts.
Years later they destroyed an army of french knights in Athens.They were Outnumbered but the tactic was go under the horse and cut him down. It was an effective tactic. The initial army had 6000 knights. It survived 2 horses.

[MagyarKhans Cham]

"A stone monument raised during Chinggis Khaan times states that a marksman named Esunkhei hit a target at 355 ald or more than 500 meters distance. People of that time were very strong and bows were well made. Nowadays, shooting half of this distance would be a top record. To shoot that far, one would need special lightweight arrows. Today we use 60-72 gram arrows and this is 10 times heavier than those needed for distant shooting. With proper arrows it will be possible to shoot for as far as 350 meters," says Suhbaatar.

The Central Asian composite bow, like comparable weapons used by Middle Eastern and some eastern European armies, was an extremely sophisticated weapon. It needed much greater strength to pull than the famous English longbow. But, although it was much shorter, and consequently suitable for use on horseback, it had an equally long draw right back to the archer's cheek. The composite bow also gave a much more regular release of tension when loosed and thus its arrows had about twice the range, with a flatter trajectory and greater accuracy, than English infantry bows. It appears, in fact, that whereas the penetrating power of the longbow depended upon the arrow's velocity.

Because of this, its effectiveness was comparable to the crossbow which was, however, far slower to operate. Small wonder that it took a long time for gunpowder to have much impact upon the steppes and that 'Tartar' horse-arches from the Crimea, not to mention Ottoman Turks, were still campaigning effectively across eastern Europe well into the seventeenth century. The Mongol or Turkish version of the Asiatic composite bow was apparently shorter than the 'Scythian' type still used in Byzantium and Russia. But, being even shorter for use on horseback, it was thicker inspection and needed even greater strength to pull-often more than 45 kg of tension. Different peoples used different materials in the construction of their composite bows, though all were built around a wooden core. Many central Asian nomads used four pieces of ram's horn, whereas the Chinese incorporated a single large piece of water-buffalo horn. The belly of the bow consisted of strands of sinew, the Chinese using spinal sinew, the Muslims the Achilles tendon and the nomads whatever they could obtain.

[TakedaTakedaTakemata]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MagyarKhans Cham:
[B]"A stone monument raised during Chinggis Khaan times states that a marksman named Esunkhei hit a target at 355 ald or more than 500 meters distance.

It needed much greater strength to pull than the famous English longbow.

English infantry bows. It appears, in fact, that whereas the penetrating power of the longbow depended upon the arrow's velocity.

Khan, I think some parts of what you have said are a bit wrong in places.

An ald was about 150mm/160mm or the distance of out stretched arms. So would be more than 500 meters.
Would of curse only have been an flight arrow with little penetrate affect, in war this sort of range had the advantage of moral breaker over enemy troops that might think they where out of range so still very useful.
Its best effective lethal range was about 90-140meters 100-160 yards, but would damage lightly armoured troops at about 275metres 300yards.

English longbows had draw weights of 180ld+ for the best men, average mans war bow would be about 140ld+.

The composite bow relied on a faster velocity, the longbow relied on heavier slower moving arrows, which looses less energy over a distance than fast light arrows, light arrows may fly faster and longer but don’t deliver as much energy as the heavier arrow on impact.

[TakedaTakedaTakemata]

An ald was about 150mm/160mm or the distance of out stretched arms. So would be more than 500 meters.

Sorry mistake should be 150cm/160cm 59inches 63inches.