Just How Accurate [Archive]

SmokWawelski

01-02-2003, 19:22

Quote[/b] ]Maybe the archers just need more arrows and faster rates of fire if the units were well known for their ability with a bow.
Thats what I changed for my SP games: more arrows (double the original, but only for dedicated archers) leathality up by 10% and reload times down 30% for Xbows and arbs. Plays much better now.

Quote[/b] ]Some peeps think horse archery is under powered
I dont while riding the other day i thought hmm it would be very hard to fire an arrow from the back of this beast
That was done Firing from a riding horse was one of the many tactics used by eastern armies attacking Poland through the history. I am not sure about how to translate their names into english, not to mistake them for some other nations/tribes, so I will not.
We have to remember that these nomads made war their "profession" and riding "beasts" was what they were doing probably from the age that we now send our children to 1st grade. A LOT of time to practice.

I was hoping that it is possible for these units (especially Golden Horde archers) to enable the fire/move capability, but it looks like only the reload/move can be done... Oh well...

Lehesu

01-02-2003, 19:51

If you shoot point-blank at Knights, ALL the shots fired SHOULD hit something. Also, a problem is that ALL the ranged units, except gunpowder, xbows, and siege, shoot longbow-style; high arcs. This leads to decreased individual accuracy but higher spread kill. Some units, such as horse archers, really can't rely on this and shoot with less of an arc. This improves the chances of hitting a person where you want to hit them, as the horse archers cannot rely on armor piercing bodkin and large shafts to do the work. If horse archers fired like they should, they would be more lethal. Also, it IS hard to shoot off of horseback but the best horse archers, such as those of Japan and the Mongol Horde, have practiced a lot and are every bit as accurate as standing archers, even more so.

TheViking

01-02-2003, 21:00

they were trained to shoot from the back of the horse/camel. But if they are underpowerd i dont know. They are 20 men less then archers and other shooters. I think thats why they dont kill so many when they do shoot.

Magyar Khan

01-02-2003, 21:10

well horsearchers should add spice to the game and now they only add headaches.

i use mostly at leat 2 of them cuz i love living in the past (TW shogun and MI)

Exile

01-02-2003, 23:15

I have no idea really, but here's my guesses:

Generally horse archers used smaller bows, meaning less powerful and shorter range bows. Large bows would be a bit unwieldy on horseback. Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, my history professor from a few semesters ago used to go on and on about how physically strong the Mongols were to be able to draw their bows, meaning they were very powerful I assume (the bows and the archers) so maybe the Mongols and some others were exceptions.

While I am sure that some elite warriors were very accurate with a bow from horseback, I just dont see that being easy to train to troops en masse.

TheViking

01-02-2003, 23:20

I think the japanesse or somewhere around there in the far east they had a bow called Han-Kiu or something like that. that wasnt a shortbow and it was formed so you could use it good from the horse

Lehesu

01-03-2003, 00:01

Don't forget the archery ring; this allowed archers, including horse-mounted ones, to draw the bow string way back for maximum power.

Sir Chauncy

01-03-2003, 00:39

I actually had conversation with someone in this very forum some time ago about gunpower weapons and how (in)accurate they were. He said that apparently there was a scuffle between two units of arquebusiers. They stood a few hundred yards appart and shot at each other for an hour (this might not be 100% correct, it was a few years ago now) and they killed 5 men, three on one side, 2 on the other. How crap was that?

On the subject of archery, didn't the mongols have composite small bows? I thought that they had about 30 or 40 pounds pull, which on horse back is bloody good, and I also thought that the bit you held was about 2/3 of the way down the bow, specially designed for use on a horse. It might look bloody stupid but it worked because of the composite nature of the bow, you could make the top and the bottom sections balance out to give even strain.

By the way, I have heard all about its armour piercing properties, but does anyone have any idea whata bodkin arrow looked like? Anyone have any pics?

And Lehesu, what is an archery ring? Sounds rude to me... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Edit - how many spelling mistakes can you get in one post? Damn TV, it ruined my ability to um...

Lehesu

01-03-2003, 03:42

An archery ring is a ring worn on the finger that has a curved hook on it. The archer puts the string on the hook and than draws his arm back as far as he wants. This allows archers to get more strength on shots as they don't have to hold a little string with two fingers while trying to pull it back at the same time. Good on horseback. As to the other "archery ring"; this may or may not improve bow performance and I sure as hell won't go any deeper than that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Hakonarson

01-03-2003, 04:08

Horse archery could be extremely accurate - Mamluk archers were required to be able to fire 3 shots in 1.5 seconds and hit a small tartget with them all while galloping.

Mounted bows were not underpowered either - horse archery only existed where short, powerful composite bows were made. These bows were just as powerful as the Welsh longbow, but handier, and more efficient at storing and delivering energy to the arrow. They also tended to use various arrowheads depending upon the target - broadheads for unarmoured ones, narrow armour piercing ones when required.

However all that aside, it is a myth that every projectil must hit something even at short range. The Mameluk example above was an exercise - with lots of dust, noise and people trying to kill the archer it is a safe bet that accuracy was not so good

There is also considerable "air" in between fighters in almost any formation, and arrows are not all that lethal so a lot of shots that hit simply do not bring the target down

Shields and armour also defeat a lot of arrows.

The worst cases I know of of arrows demolishing troops are English longbows vs Scots at battles like Falkirk and Holidon Hill - the unarmoured and unshielded scots infantry were shot to pieces by massed archery as they were either stationary or struggled uphill against a stationary line of archers who had no-one shooting back at them.

As for musketry - it often took very few casualties to defeat a cavalry charge - if several horses went down the nthe adjacent ones could veer away from straight ahead and hte chargge would disintigrate. This only happened when the musketry was conentrated tho - several ranks firing at once.

Single ranks firing by rotation were completely unable to stop cavalry and would often get ridden down - sometimes even when they did have pikes handy.

By Napoleonic times (actually much earlier but...) all nations used "Platoon" firing - 30-50 men would fire a volley from 2-3 ranks, while adjacent platoons held their fire, so that there was always part of a batalion that was loaded and ready to fire.

This delivered enough firepower over short frontages to knock out enough horses to stop charges. Usually

Musketeers were also notorious for not aiming properly - usually firing high apparently. In fact they did not aim at all - the command was normally "present" rather than aim - meaning they simply put the firearm to their shoulder and pointed it forwards - in early times they might even avert their eyes to avoid getting stung by powder flash

Alrowan

01-03-2003, 04:09

well its not hard at all for horse archers, like knights they could control thier mounts with thier legs, leaving there hands free to shoot.

the only drawback with horsearchers is that they have to stop to fire. In reality the could gallop and fire at the same time... imagine the chaos that would cause in the game

SmokWawelski

01-03-2003, 05:24

True: speed and pointed, flying toofpicks: a deadly combination.

spiffy_scimitar

01-03-2003, 10:00

3 shots in 1.5 seconds? Yowza. That's almost faster than I can hit the channel button on my remote control.

CBR

01-03-2003, 14:05

Yes they really should be able to fire on the move, they are not meant to take up the fight with foot archers/xbows, but as a harassment unit although its not very good in MTW.

CBR

Sir Chauncy

01-03-2003, 15:59

Three shots in one and a half seconds? IO am afraid I find that very hard to believe. No matter how much you train you could not physically get the arrows and notch them in to the bow fast enough. No offence to anyone as this is just how these rumours get started. The Archers themselves probably started it I imagine that 1000 years ago someone managed to notch and fire 2 arrows int 3 seconds, without accuracy and not properly firing them, then, some one saw this told their kids it was better than that, they told their kids enemies caught wind of someone saying this one day, then thing just escalated. Most of the battle is one and lost in rumour and hearsay. Not the pop group although I am sure they could have done their part to shorten any siege. I can see it now:

"surrender the castle, we have a Hearsay record down here and we aren't afraid to use it"

Jokes aside my main point still stands. I really don't believe that this was done, just a rumour that got out of hand.

Kraxis

01-03-2003, 17:22

I have to agree that 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds is a bit fast. And back then they didn't really have an accurate measurement of a second (or did they? Enlighten me).

Just try and reach back over your own shoulder to grab an arrow and then nook the arrow and let it loose, it doesn't matter you don't have a bow and arrow, it is the movement that matters. While you can manage to do this three times in 1.5 seconds, you can only just manage it. Then comes the strength needed to pull the bow and then the aiming.

No doubt they were fast... but not that fast.

I have seen a reenactment of Agincourt, with some quite profficient bowmen. While they are no doubt not as good as the real archers back then they were at the limit of speed. They managed to get about 2 arrows off in 3 seconds, this with areafiring, meaning little direct accuray.

Magyar Khan

01-03-2003, 20:23

yes 3 in 1.5 sec is very hard to believe but a dozen in a minute is reachable

khurjan

01-03-2003, 23:36

Quote[/b] (Exile @ Jan. 02 2003,08:15)]I have no idea really, but here's my guesses:

Generally horse archers used smaller bows, meaning less powerful and shorter range bows. Large bows would be a bit unwieldy on horseback. Makes sense to me.

On the other hand, my history professor from a few semesters ago used to go on and on about how physically strong the Mongols were to be able to draw their bows, meaning they were very powerful I assume (the bows and the archers) so maybe the Mongols and some others were exceptions.

While I am sure that some elite warriors were very accurate with a bow from horseback, I just dont see that being easy to train to troops en masse.
well composite bows used by mongols, mamelukes and other nomad peeps were pretty powerful, we did a test using bows made in mongol, mameluke and turkish way and each of them were able to pierce a plate armour at 120 paces...that is awesome compared to firearms of those times....also most bows used by common soldiers were straight uncomplicated bows made of one wood thet didnt have enough poundage pull or strength like welsh long bows or composite bows

james

01-03-2003, 23:58

I think horse archery is underpowered by far. Yes it was more mobile for them to get around the battle field, but what is the point when there was ordinary archers to hit their targets. Ordinary achers also had plenty of time to get a clean shot at their targets. As for horses just say they 'move' around when the archer is aiming, the horse could cause the archer to cause a terrible accident.

*cough* arrow in the head *cough*

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Lion King

01-04-2003, 12:31

"I actually had conversation with someone in this very forum some time ago about gunpower weapons and how (in)accurate they were. He said that apparently there was a scuffle between two units of arquebusiers. They stood a few hundred yards appart and shot at each other for an hour (this might not be 100% correct, it was a few years ago now) and they killed 5 men, three on one side, 2 on the other. How crap was that?"

well, i dont really know exactly how good/bad arqs. were, but in your example they were hundreds of yards away, while they are supposed to be fired from much much closer than that
besides, they were armoured (at least in MTW), and at such distances, the bullets would be like hailstones, much probably only killing someone by hitting them on unarmored vital parts such as the face/neck/whatever.

Surely handguns were utter crap, designed to cause fear to less advanced armies, especially if they had never seen gunpowder before (much like tanks in WW1, tough as demons by germans, putting them on retreat on the first encounters).
Arqs were a bit better than in MTW i think, so i made a mod to fix that they now have a much more realistic and enjoyable performance IMO.
Just shoot at a deep formation of peasants at close range with good valour arqs in a long line and see their whole first rank collapse to the floor. nasty stuff, but the longs bows are even better, 80 men per unit and some real killing power when high valour.
Download it at This post (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=4142)
mind you it is not extremely balanced but entertaining (backup your files&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Swoosh So

01-04-2003, 16:24

Anyone know any good sites for information on just how accurate over distance the horse archer could be? Ive tried www.horsearchery.org but it doesent really give you statistics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Magyar Khan

01-04-2003, 16:28

http://www.mongols.club.tip.nl

u knew that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Magyar Khan

01-04-2003, 16:32

see also the article about bows and arrows in the weaponry section
-------------------------------------------------
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.

Swoosh So

01-04-2003, 16:35

Where to start? The horse archery was awesome, Kassai was the star of that part of the show. His ability on a horse and with a bow has to be seen to be believed. When he was doing good, he would get 6 arrows into the target in 10 seconds, from the back of a running horse, when he was slow, it would take him 11 seconds. He had to use local cattle horses, and only had a couple of days to train them. Can you imagine what it would be like with trained archery horses?

A letter written after the 2000 int horse archery festival http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Swoosh So

01-04-2003, 16:40

Watching Kassai's technique, it was difficult to catch exactly what he was doing to shoot so fast and accurate. The horse, of course was moving up and down as it ran, but if you kept an eye on kassai's upper body, it was as if it was smoothly floating down the track, no up and down movement whatsoever. He shot with the thumb ring method with a floating anchor somewhere around his ear. His face showed a great level of concentration as he shot so rapidly, sometimes while completely backward and 60 or so meters from the target, still hitting it well. I would want him on my side, while fighting on the steppes in the great age of the horse archers. The Monglolians were excellent field archers, and wonderful people to visit with, their interpreter did a fine job. They showed us their national game of archery, shooting at 75 meters at coffe cup sized rawhide baskets stacked in 2 rows, with the top center one wrapped with red cloth. they shot their horn bows flawlessly, often hitting the tiny red basket at such a long distance. They are very accomplished archers. Munkhtsetseg, Who is the six time national champion female archer of Mongolia, had flawless form and concentration, and her husband Ishbataar ( I may have spelled that wrong) was also an excellent archer, hitting the targets most of the time. In Mongolian archery the scorer stands just off the side of the targets, like a clout shooting judge. Signalling with special hand movements, they tell whether the arrow landed short, bounced, went over or to the side etc.. Oto, the interpreter explained the rules and signals as they proceeded. A special song is sung to indicate the winning score. It was a pleasure to watch and learn, and I wish I could shoot so well at 75 meters. they also showed me a game they play, like dice, with sheep ankle bones. the game is fast, and fun to watch, but I didn't catch on, they would have cleaned me out. The Mongolians are just now re-learning their horse archery, and hopefully will return next year.

Wow this guy sounds awesome
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Swoosh So

01-04-2003, 16:57

Has anyone here ever tried horse archery? Magyar? Did you shoot a bow while on your trip to mongolia?

Swoosh So

01-04-2003, 16:59

Hmm 6 arrows hitting the target in 10 seconds thats 1 shot every 1.66 seconds

SmokWawelski

01-04-2003, 19:19

Swoosh, you seem to be quite an authority on the archery. Good to have you on the forum. You should be included in every moddin team just to look over the development of the missile units...

Magyar Khan

01-04-2003, 21:07

lol smok, i think swoosh was coppying data from a particular site... u could do that too. cut and paste. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Kraxis

01-05-2003, 05:08

Ok, time for a short reply.

Magyar, you had a post of Mongol bows having a draw of about 45kg (100 lbs), but that is less than the Longbows that were about 50-70kg. I believe thwe highest figues would only be possible by th best and strongest bowmen, but they were possible.

Hakonarson

01-06-2003, 03:07

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Jan. 03 2003,10:22)]I have to agree that 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds is a bit fast. And back then they didn't really have an accurate measurement of a second (or did they? Enlighten me).

Just try and reach back over your own shoulder to grab an arrow and then nook the arrow and let it loose, it doesn't matter you don't have a bow and arrow, it is the movement that matters. While you can manage to do this three times in 1.5 seconds, you can only just manage it. Then comes the strength needed to pull the bow and then the aiming.

No doubt they were fast... but not that fast.

I have seen a reenactment of Agincourt, with some quite profficient bowmen. While they are no doubt not as good as the real archers back then they were at the limit of speed. They managed to get about 2 arrows off in 3 seconds, this with areafiring, meaning little direct accuray.
Mameluks and otehr horse archers usually did not take their arrows from teh quiver for each shot - rather they held a few in their hand.

the figure of 3 shots in 1.5 seconds comes from

Nomads on ponies vs. slaves in horses
Smith, John Masson, Jr. Nomads on ponies vs. slaves in horses. (Mamluk-Ilkhanid War)(book review) Journal of the American Oriental Society v118, n1 (Jan-March, 1998):54 (9 pages). COPYRIGHT 1998 American Oriental Society.

Note that Mameluk archers weer trained to shoot while stationary, while their Mongol opponents mostly shot at the gallop.

If yuo or anyone else would like a copy of this article I'd be happy to send it to you.

Kraxis

01-06-2003, 04:08

Ok, so their held the arrows in their hand.

I still have a hard time believing it as if they were held in the pulling hand it would be very hard to fire accurately, and if they were held in the holding hand it would take almost as long as if they pulled from a quiver (this given the need to pull the arrows through the bow and then place it).

The Longbowmen I saw even had their arrows in the ground in front of them, a placement that made reloading very easy and fast as the arrows were about one meter long (no need to bend over).

Hakonarson

01-06-2003, 04:23

Kraxis you may believe or not - the evidence is there.

As you say - it would be difficult, but then Royal Mamelukes were professional soliders in a sense that English longbowmen were not - they were permanently established in time of peace and war, and speed shooting was something they practiced - I've not head that the english ever valued it or practiced it much.

It really doesn't take long to draw and loose an arrow - it is the getting of the arrow and the nocking that take time, and if half of that is achieved already then I see nothign at all improbable about a short "burst" of 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds from an elite professional archer.

Swoosh So

01-06-2003, 09:50

Hehe smok im more an authority on riding horses but i know nothing of archery hence the thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

roisinlee

01-06-2003, 11:10

Take into account that I mainly focus on Roman history but...

Chariots have been tested as weapons of war and, wierdly enough, at low speeds they're completely useless. However - its fairly well documented that at full gallop an archer of an acceptable level should have no problems aiming at an ordinary target in passing. An ordinary target being the standard range shooting target. (Smaller than your average person)

I'd therefore believe that the same would be with a horse.

As for wieght etc... A knight in full harness could perform any movement required: he could lie down, stand up, sit, run, mount and dismount from his horse unaided. The idea that knights needed a crane to get on their horses is an invention of comic illustrators. The armor/arrows wouldn't get in the way too much.

Sir Chauncy

01-06-2003, 14:31

So many thing to comment on...

Hakonarson: As for the Longbowmen not being 'professional' :

They had to shoot three arrows everyday before breakfast. It is actually still a law that is in place today, on pain of some punishment or other. But they did train and train every day. Some of the older churches still have the marks on their brickwork where arrows were sharpened. There was supoosed to be a technique for stopping a cavarly charge as well, I have no idea if there is any truth in it as I have no link to back it up, where you just launched as many arrows as you could straight forward. Accuracy was not quite so important as you were in a unit but the air was think with armour piercing arrows. At least that is what i heard... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

And which hand did they hold the arrows in? As kraxis says, if they held them in the string hand, how would they notch an arrow without putting something down? If they held them in the bow hand, how would they hold the bow and get a new arrow when they had fired the last? It might have happened but it just doesn't seem possible to do it that fast IMO.

roisinlee: I have heard people argue both sides of the coin about knights in full platemail and really do not know which one to believe. I find it hard to come to terms with the fact that anyone could move with all of that armour on and be as agile as a cat. But then, they did fight didn't they? But then if they did have lots of armour on, it wouldn't have mattered if they did get hit because they had lots of armour on... the debate seems to be circular and endless.

Kraxis

01-06-2003, 16:28

I must admit my knowledge of the Mamlukes is more than a bit lacking, but 1.5 seconds is extremely short, and given that in those days there weren't any reliable ways to actually measure individual half or full seconds, it seems in my mind more of a hearsay than a fact. If there were reliable sources for such measures (I don't know it for sure, so any enligtenment would be nice) I would believe it much more, though still doubt it due to the problems faced with holding arrows.

Even a fairly welltrained rifleman can't fire more than about 3 fairly accurate shots in 2 seconds with a semirifle. Granted he has to contend with recoil, but that is only half the equation as the bowman would need to reaim after each shot too.

Sir Chauncy, funny enough I have seen a program about reenactors of Medieval knights and the ones from the War of the Roses. There I saw a man in full plate jump around, roll on the ground and of course fight. He did admit it was both hot and heavy, but not impossible as sometimes presented. It even seemed quite flexible from what he did.

roisinlee

01-06-2003, 21:38

Chauncy: (read if you are interested) There isn't really two sides to the coin on the "wieght of armor" debate. Its just a slightly angled coin thats been knocked over.

Of course a knight in platemail isn't going to be as agile as a knight *not* in platemail but some small facts remain.

Spurs and stirrups were designed so a knight could stand in his saddle for a sword cut or lance thrust. The full wieght of the knight would be carried by the stirrups for at least a moment.

A knight would have to be able to survive a fall from horse back. Especially during training.

Knights have been known to duel in full armor.

Take into account that the manufacture of armor from the early ages is still a mystery today and involved some mechanical power derived from water wheels - and that a knight couldn't ready himself for battle on his lonesome - A squire or assistant would help sew patches of mail, draw armor laces and fit the armor precisely. You find a very versitile piece of safety equipment. While its not good for running the hundred metres - it still allows for some pretty heavy swinging and horse mounting. And knights *had* to be able to dismount and remount on their own.

While the entire suit of armor may wiegh quite a bit - the armor in question is built perfectly for the wearer. The wieght is distributed very well - think about slinging a heavy wieght over your shoulder or having it in a back pack - its a similar thing. Its easier to carry.

(The only real debate that I know of - is the effectiveness of armor. Some historians believe that chain mail is more effective in a lot of ways than plate for example... But knights take too many years of training to be walking juggernauts... Why train a man with bow, spear, sword and horse if his approach and aim in life is to walk through everything? A heavy axe could quite easily rip a knight's legs off from a few documentations.)

(armor debate over)

Anyways - ending it. I could go on for hours about this kind of thing. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif If you'd like some reading etc... I can direct a few things that are entertaining/informative.

(Archery)

I wouldn't doubt that archers can fire very fast. Cretan soldiers in greek times (remember this was around 300 - 400 BC) carried around 300 arrows in their quivers. So pulling arrows from a saddle harness, leaning off a horse and firing isn't that great a feat - esp standing with a few arrows at hand (Arrows can be as short as 18 inches in length). Especially since many horse archers learn to manipulate their horses with their legs. (I assume mamelukes aren't so dis-similar - plus drawing arrows is quicker from saddle than standing since you don't have to reach back.)

However all this said, during the 1300's people weren't any more super human than they are now. Firing three arrows in two seconds while holding them at once is one thing - doing it accurately is another.

Other than that - people really under estimate the technology available in the ancient and dark ages... Hour glasses were invented for a reason. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

(I'd be more of a help if we were talking about things other than missles but nevermind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hakonarson

01-06-2003, 22:35

Quote[/b] (Sir Chauncy @ Jan. 06 2003,07:31)]So many thing to comment on...

Hakonarson: As for the Longbowmen not being 'professional' :

They had to shoot three arrows everyday before breakfast.

And which hand did they hold the arrows in? As kraxis says, if they held them in the string hand, how would they notch an arrow without putting something down? If they held them in the bow hand, how would they hold the bow and get a new arrow when they had fired the last? It might have happened but it just doesn't seem possible to do it that fast IMO.
3 arrows befoer breakfast - gosh - yes I can see that as helping their speed shooting

It is my understanding from many discussinos on horse archery that the arrows were held in the bow hand almost flat so their nocks were only a few inches from the string. They would only be held by a single finger, so they do not greatly interfere with holding the bow.

Shooting them then requiers rotating the arrow only a short distance to nock them then pulling and loosing.

this is supposition arising from discussions on archery groups about how such a burst of fire might be achieved rather than knowledge of actual Mameluk opractices.

Modern archers have (so they've told me) tried this and it's awkward at first but they believe they could probably get used to it with practice.

as for accuracy - well using this technique there's no need to lower the bow, nor any need to take your eye off the target. Stationary horse archery is apparently accurate out to about 75 yards.

I'm surprised no-one has asked me for a copy of the article.

Kraxis

01-06-2003, 23:54

Ok bring it then...

I would like to know how the Mamlukes knew it took only 1.5 seconds.

Hakonarson

01-07-2003, 00:09

The article isn't about the burst of shooting - it is a review of a book comparing teh Mongol and Mameluk ways of war, and it states teh shooting rate as a statement.

there may be more information on it in the book that it revies.

But I'll need your e-mail address

Also the measurement of time is pretty easy - for example if you know how far a galloping horse can cover in 15 seconds then 1/10th of that distance will be covered in 1.5 seconds.

Or water or ships or arrows or anything else.

Calibration of a sand glass would be a failry trivial exercise as someone else pointed out.

Sir Chauncy

01-07-2003, 00:46

Roisinlee: I would very much like to know of other post or artiles that you could direct me too. I love this sort of thing... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I have to confess that I believed, before I came to this forum many years ago, that a Knight in plate mail could fight and fight well, sort of like the two knights fighting in Monty Pythons Holy Grail only without the jokes. It was just that seeing people here dismiss the idea of freedom and mobility in a suit of mail that put doubt in my mind. thank you, after a dose of reality pills I feel much better now.

*twitch*

The arrows thing has helped though. i just couldn't see how it would be possible to hold them and not shoot yourself in the side of the head by accident or something, I suppose that three arrows in quick succession would be the machine gun equivalent of burst fire.

I still hold with my idea of a lot of these times and numbers being, wheras not fictitious, just exagerated a little, what better way to put your enemy on the defensive? Set out with an angry mob, by the time this (mis)information reaches the enemy you could have 1000 crack troops and their grandmas kitchen sink in a week.

Still I do like the thought of 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds, whether it can be done or not, it sounds cool.

roisinlee

01-09-2003, 19:01

Kraxis: I would like to know how the Mamlukes knew it took only 1.5 seconds.

Read my previous post if you like Kraxis. The theory of time and how to measure it has been around for quite a while. Primitive time keeping devices are all over the place and they're more accurate than you'd think.

Hakonarson: 3 arrows befoer breakfast - gosh - yes I can see that as helping their speed shooting

If you fired three arrows at the start of every day for the rest of your life, I'm sure even you could become fairly adept at archery. Take into account that this is just one exert from ye olde english law and that many archers using the english war bow would've practiced much more... You end up with an extremely good archer.

However... A lot of people underestimate the strength required to draw a bow. The longbow was party powerful due to the ability to draw back to the cheek - the range was also fairly impressive. Therefore comparing a long bow to a short bow used by a cavalry archer may not be the best idea.

Sir Chauncy:

There is a lot of evidence to say that, during the dark ages, exageration was a common thing. People attacked by vikings believed them to be demons, paintings and pictures dipict full armored armies cleaving through hordes of enemies with ease and I doubt people bothered counting corpse numbers accurately ether. Kind of like the medieval equivolent of show business.

As for more information, if you want to take the online route I'd suggest the sword forums. Primarily for weapon and armor collectors, but the discussion that goes on there is *very* accurate and usually engaging debate. (Fairly easy to find if you look)

There are also plenty of books out on the subject - for starters I'd suggest anything written by "Frederick Wilkinson" - althought beware that information changes faster than most people think. Things are still being discovered that change the way people percieve the past and remember: a historian is just a person like anyone else, if anything they make more stuff ups than normal people because what they say tends to get written down.

(You'd be amazed how many non-fiction books have elements of fiction in them. :P)

If you want anything else, just gimme a kick.

Cousin Zoidfarb

01-09-2003, 19:55

The 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds is quoted from Osprey Men-at-Arms the ``Mamlukes`` handbook. You can look it up there. I think horsearchery is too weak in this game. A hundred years before longbows established their fame, unarmoured horsearchers wiped out heavily armored chinese, persian, and european cavalry and infantry. The horsearchers were equippped with armour piercing arrows and were very accurate.

Hakonarson

01-09-2003, 23:04

Quote[/b] (roisinlee @ Jan. 09 2003,12:01)]Hakonarson: 3 arrows befoer breakfast - gosh - yes I can see that as helping their speed shooting

If you fired three arrows at the start of every day for the rest of your life, I'm sure even you could become fairly adept at archery. Take into account that this is just one exert from ye olde english law and that many archers using the english war bow would've practiced much more... You end up with an extremely good archer.

However... A lot of people underestimate the strength required to draw a bow. The longbow was party powerful due to the ability to draw back to the cheek - the range was also fairly impressive. Therefore comparing a long bow to a short bow used by a cavalry archer may not be the best idea.
You may not have been following the various archery threads all that closely, but let me saythis - the "short" bows used by horse archers were generally not in the least bit inferior to English longbows.

Horse archer bows are invariably compound construction - that is they use various materials in various places on the bow to achieve maximum efficiency in storing and releasing energy. For example bone and other dense materials are used on the inside of the bow because they resist compression, while tendons and other springy materials are used on the outside because they resist tension.

Simple "self" bows made from a single piece of wood such as a classic longbow achieve somethign similar by having hearwood on the inside, but they are nowhere near as efficient as energy storage devices.

Secondly horse archer bows are normally recurve - that is "cupid" shaped, rather than the simple curve of a longbow. The recurve shape is extremely efficient at delivering energy to the arrow when the arrow can use if most - specifically it accelerates the arrow more as the arrow is released rather than when the arrow is stationary.

The longbow in contrast delivers its highest acceleration immediately upon release of the string, when hte arrow is stationary. This means the arrow takes a greater shock so has to be heavier to withstand it, resulting in lower velocity.

The net result is that horse archer bows are appreciably more efficient and effective than longbows in virtually every respect. Horse archer bows are known to have had jsut as heavy pulls as longbows (75-150 lb), but were more efficient at storing and delivering the energy to the arrow.

the areas where the longbow IS better are in cost, ease of manufacture, and ability to withstand wet humid climates. Compound recurve bows weer made by glueing the components together, and wet environments were their enemy. this appears to have been the main reason they were never popular in Western Europe - although relatively short duration "raids" by archers armed with them showed they were perfectly capable weapons (eg Huns, Magyars, Avars, etc)

Comparing a horse archer bow to a long bow is not a good idea - the longbow is definitely deficient by comparison

Magyar Khan

01-10-2003, 01:53

Quote[/b] (Beavis @ Jan. 09 2003,12:55)]The 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds is quoted from Osprey Men-at-Arms the ``Mamlukes`` handbook. You can look it up there. I think horsearchery is too weak in this game. A hundred years before longbows established their fame, unarmoured horsearchers wiped out heavily armored chinese, persian, and european cavalry and infantry. The horsearchers were equippped with armour piercing arrows and were very accurate.
ur right its in tthose books, and i rely on them mostly
but being able to shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 sec doesnt mean u can perform that under all circumstances and its most likely that the 2 arrows were already kept in teh hands, being able to place and draw them immediatly. u simply can not hold 60 arrows in your hand between some fingers.

furthermore being able to shoot 75 metres at a 1 m big target is not included in this speed, in full gallop.

Magyar Khan

01-10-2003, 01:54

btw ur right horsearchery is stupid weak in this game.

Hakonarson

01-10-2003, 02:49

Quote[/b] (Magyar Khan @ Jan. 09 2003,18:53)]but being able to shoot 3 arrows in 1.5 sec doesnt mean u can perform that under all circumstances and its most likely that the 2 arrows were already kept in teh hands, being able to place and draw them immediatly. u simply can not hold 60 arrows in your hand between some fingers.

furthermore being able to shoot 75 metres at a 1 m big target is not included in this speed, in full gallop.
Of course it doesn't mean it can be done under all circumstances.

IIRC the article I quoted (not teh Osprey work) was noting how stationary and armoured Mamelukes could fire faster than galloping and generally unarmoured Mongols.

Further stationary archery was more accurate than galloping archery - so the Mameluks would be shooting at 75 yards wheil the Mongols had to close to 40 or so.

In this context teh "burst" of 3 shots is easily seen as getting in the first blows before your opponent can even get a shot off - even if not as accurate as more measured archery some of those arrows are going to hit thus giving you the advantage.

It's a simple but obvious tactic used by all military throughout the ages including such famous actions as Pearl Harbour and the Israeli airstrikes at he start of teh '67 war

Against another target it might well be not worth the loss of accuracey that it might well have entailed.

roisinlee

01-11-2003, 06:56

The point I was making that you can't compare a longbow to the short bow due to the difference in rate of fire. A longbow takes longer to fire due to the fact it draws back to the cheek, regardless of strength required to draw - there is, at very least, an extra draw distance.

Sorry if I wasn't quite so clear. (I go everywhere sometimes)

Thanks for the info anyways. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Other than that, not really adding anything to the debate. I'd still say that its probably possible just not accurately.

Other than that - yeah horse archers in MTW tend to suck a bit. I prefered the interpretation in Stronghold:Crusader (Even if the game is energy bars galore) but you can really harrass some troops upon the long march to your castle gates. I really like that kind of thing.