muskets vs.longbows in MTW2

[poo_for_brains]

There was a thread on the forum about how rubbish firearms were when they first came into use. Since in MTW2, if playing as the English, you will probably have tonnes of units of good longbowmen by the time gunpowder is discovered, will their be any point in switching to muskets, except for scaring horses?

It seems to be that the only other advantage of gunpowder units is that they will be cheap, but by the time they come in, a good player will have a steady economy already.

Just wondering what people thought.

[Myrddraal]

I think the main problem with longbowmen historically was that it's much much harder to train someone to be good with a bow than it is to train someone to point a gun and fire it...

Longbows were more effective than early gunpower weaponry, but much harder to train.

[Sethik]

An effective way to balance the issue is to increase the unit size of musketmen. Since it was much easier to train a man to point and fire than to draw and shoot there should be more musketmen per unit.

I think it might also add a massive musketmen line as a viable strategy.

[Myrddraal]

Well now that there's these recruitment pools, the simple way would be to have a much much larger recruitment pool for gunpowder units.

[professorspatula]

Yes but unless they make Gunpowder units more useful and cost effective, you probably won't require more than a few units in an army, so greater availability won't be that important. Unless of course longbow availability is very scarce, but then you wouldn't want it to be that scarce throughout the campaign or you won't have enough pre-gunpowder age. I wonder therefore if unit recruitment replenishment changes over the course of time, or indeed unit costs? Or maybe we can just all spam musket armies!

I'm sure CA has it all figured out though.

[Tamur]

I don't know what M2TW will be like, but powder will likely be a battle-winner par excellence based on its effects to morale.

With bows in MTW, one enjoyed the same casualty rate as mid-grade powder units. However, the difference was that, with powder units, the enemy loses 5, 10, 15 men at the same instant after a volley is fired. I remember this as a rout-inducer by itself in MTW, even without the additional cavalry-fright effect, and I would guess (just a guess, of course) that M2TW will be similar.

[Ignoramus]

I fear that CA may accidently overpower gunpowder units. Arquebusiers in MTW were about exactly right.

[DisruptorX]

I felt that guns in MTW were vastly underpowered. Against the AI, they often never even got a shot off before they were either in melee, or blocked by allied units. The AI wasn't stupid, and did its best to stop you from using them. At maximum range, they never seemed to hit anything, and were decimated by crossbows. It took a ridiculous amount of effort to use them effectively, far more effort than they were actually worth, you had to really want to use them.

It may just be that I haven't used them all that much, so I'm not good with them, but still. Extremely finesse based.

The downsides will be obvious in any event, short range, long reload time compared to the long range, fast firing longbows.

[JR-]

sounds pretty historical to me.

[DisruptorX]

The main problem, at least, for me, was that you could not order your men to load their guns before lining up the shot.. The unit had to start reloading from scratch every time it moved. :wall:

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

[poo_for_brains]

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

In the new game, your gunpowder troops now fire in volleys, so that's not a problem.

As for the people talking about recruitment pools, by the time gunpowder is invented, you are hundreds of years into the game - plenty of time to build up a healthy amount of longbowmen, even if the recruitmnt pools are relatively small.

Anyway, the recruitmnt pools for longbows should be big shouldn't they? - I thought everyone in England had to learn to shoot a bow.

[cannon_fodder]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range, greater power, a greater morale effect, and far greater recruitement pools.
Longbows should have a greater rate of fire, far greater accuracy, the ability to fire in rainy weather, and possibly lesser upkeep.

Base costs should be about the same.

[CBR]

Also, your men could not fire in volleys while the rank behind them reloaded. I don't know if this tactic had come into use so early on, but it seems like common sense to me.

If put in two ranks only they will fire a volley. In 3 ranks they fire by revolving ranks. Handguns and arquebus in MTW had lousy killing power. An arquebus should be comparable with a heavy crossbow IMO.

So far we have only seen revolving ranks fire in M2TW vids. I think M2TW will have both the arquebus and the musket(mentioned in a description of a vid somewhere IIRC)


CBR

[TB666]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range,
No way.
Arquebuses should have alot less less range then longbows.
The way it worked in MTW1 was good IMO, medium range, not very accurate but great with reducing morale.

[Vladimir]

The later gun units, Arquebusseres or something, were actually quite effective against the AI. Just put them in front of some pikes, halbs, or spears and the computer will be so afraid to take on the spears they'll march around confused while the gun units engage and destroy them. If they did attack you just had to pull your guns back and let your infantry stall while your cav or elite infantry came in on the flanks and destroyed them. Gunpowder worked quite well, especially on the offense when you had better control of the weather. If you put your guns in ranks of 3 the rate of fire is very good. You can take out a general's unit in 2 or 3 volleys. :2thumbsup:

[Myrddraal]

the ability to fire in rainy weather
True, but a bowstring isn't very effective if it gets wet.

[Furious Mental]

If you look at the screenshots of what is apparently the Battle of Pavia, you can see that there are different firearms in use, apparently arquebuses and the larger musket.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm, I'd say...

Arquebuses should have a greater range, greater power, a greater morale effect, and far greater recruitement pools.
Longbows should have a greater rate of fire, far greater accuracy, the ability to fire in rainy weather, and possibly lesser upkeep.

Base costs should be about the same.

The maximum range of a warbow firing a 1 1/2 lb arrow would be as much as 400 yards, based on a 110 lb pull, which was about average. Maximum effective range was around 200 yards for actually killing a man. For punching through early plate range is about 60 yards. Refire rate could be as much as 20 arrows a minute but was usually more like 12, 6 when directly aiming.

By contrast the Civil-War era musket could not be accurately aimed, had a maximum range of just over 100 yards and an effective range of about 75. The fastest refire rate you could hope for would be 4 rounds a minute tops and the weapon was largely ineffective against plate. In fact breastplates were shot at at close range before being sold; the dent being a quality mark.

Thats not to mention the Crossbow, which could have a greater range and lethality than the warbow, while being faster firing and easier to use than the aquabus or musket.

The only advantage gunpounder weapons have is that you can carry about four times as much ammunition.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

crossbows are effective and easy to train too.
unfortuantly it takes long to reload.

[econ21]

By contrast the Civil-War era musket ... was largely ineffective against plate.

No disrespect intended, but I find that hard to believe - otherwise why did armour pretty much disappear with the spread of the firearm? (By Civil War, do you mean English Civil War? If so, armour then was vastly reduced compared to the pre-gunpowder era: maybe one or two units of cuirassiers were well armoured in a medieval sense; most others having a helmet and breastplate at best).

Or are you saying early firearms were not good against plate? If so, when did firearms become effective? By the Napoleonic period, breastplates were certainly not proof against muskets (hence their rarity).

[Myrddraal]

Thats not to mention the Crossbow, which could have a greater range and lethality than the warbow, while being faster firing and easier to use than the aquabus or musket.

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

[Vladimir]

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

Well that would depend on the poundage of the crossbow and what era musket you are refering to; flintlock vs. percussion cap, etc.

[ajaxfetish]

In MTW some units required multiple years to train. Perhaps that could be implemented to represent the greater commitment and difficulty of training longbowmen vs. crossbows or musketeers. Then regardless of relative cost, upkeep, or recruitment availability, longbows would be a greater investment because the province would be tied up longer in producing them.

Ajax

edit: I felt very satisfied by the relative power, reload, accuracy, etc. of the bow and gunpowder units in MTW.

[CBR]

As 1 1/2 pounds is 681 grams surely you mean ounces? I have seen around 100 grams to be the max. A standard flight arrow would have a range of about 350 yard rang and the heavy arrows 200-250 yards, depending on draw weight.

It took some very thick steel plate to stop muskets and overall gunpowder weapons can be considered quite effective against steel armour.

http://www.medievalproductions.nl/files/forshoworsafetyacrobat7.pdf

Crossbow reload time depends on how powerful they are. The clawbelt was faster than the crannequin used for the heavy crossbows. I'm pretty sure an arquebus is faster than a heavy crossbow. The heavy musket would perhaps be similar to heavy crossbows.

And crossbows are not really easy to train with. Sure it doesnt take long to figure out how to reload it but it takes lots of practice to hit anything beyond very short range.

Gunpowder weapons always had one clear advantage over bows and crossbows and that was the muzzle velocity. IMO it was easier to hit a fleeting target, in a siege or skirmish, with guns than with crossbows/bows. In battles the much longer danger zone of bullets meant accurate judgement of the range was not as important. And the forward movement of a target unit didnt require the same amount of adjusting for range.


CBR

[JFC]

Are crossbows really faster to reload than a musket?

Take a look.
A bow of the strength described by Stayner and Paterson would project a war arrow a long distance. But here again, no one is sure how far: Stayner believes the war arrow had an effective range of 180 yards; Paterson maintains a slightly further distance of 200 yards; and Bartelot estimates a useful range of 249 yards. Captain George Burnet, Secretary to the Royal Scottish Archers, notes that the members of the Queen's Body Guard for Scotland, who still shoot, use six foot long self yew bows of 55 to 60 pounds draw weight. The range of these modern bows is 180-200 yards shooting light target shafts.

The longbow, because of its rapidity of fire, was a medieval machine gun. It has been calculated that a bowman of the Hundred Years War period, when military archery was at its zenith, could shoot 10 to 12 arrows a minute. The closest weapon in range and strength to the longbow was the crossbow. But, as the battle of Crecy (1346) showed, even the superior Genoese composite crossbow - made of wood, horn, sinew and glue - was no match for the English weapon.

After firearms were introduced into continental warfare, Sir John Smythe, soldier of fortune, and Queen Elizabeth's ambassador to the Spanish Court of Philip II, noted that "archers are able to discharge four or five arrows apiece before the harquebusies shall be ready to discharge one bullet."

I wonder if CA will allow the soldiers to use the two finger gesture?

The French used to cut off the index and middle finger of English Longbowmen POWs thus cutting short their days of firing the Bow. The two figer gesture thus began to taunt the both the French POWs and on the Battle Field to indicate their ability to fire the Longbow.

[Myrddraal]

And for all you yanks out there, the two finger gesture continues to be an equivalent to the the middle finger in the UK.

BTW JFC, that quote doesn't mention crossbow reload times at all...

[cannon_fodder]

I still think arquebuses (at least in most cases) had greater ranges.

"The maximum range of the Korean bow was 460 meters, in contrast to its Japanese counterpart, a heavy composite bow whose range was 380 meters [4] which sacrified raw distance for improved accuracy. In battle, Korean archers would find themselves outranged against Japanese musketeers, who had a range of about 500 meters." (from Wikipedia)

I've read in other places that the arquebus had a greater range, but I've also read the inverse. However, a projectile launched by way of rapid conversion of solid to gas travelling further seems more likely (scientifcally speaking) than a projectile launched by tension of wood. Of course the longbow should have a greater effective range, but this should purely be a consequence of that weapon's accuracy.

An arquebus has a muzzle velocity of about 800 fps, while a longbow has one of about 130 fps. Of course, the arquebus ball would suffer greater drag due to its shape and velocity, but those figures suggest to me a greater range for the arquebus.

And I'm certain that gunpowder weapons were far more powerful. I have also read of heavy plate armour being able to stop an arquebus ball. But such armour wouldn't be used by rank-and-file troops (at least not until some time in the late 16th century). And anything that could stop an arquebus ball could also stop an arrow fired from a longbow; I'm also certain that the arquebus' percussion effect far outbalanced the bow's penetration effect. Note also that stopping something with a percussion effect will no doubt still lead to injury (as it's actually stopped by the deformation of metal, both the ball and plate), which is not necessarily the case for arrows.

As for crossbows, I've read that most had a far lesser range than the longbow, greater power, a somewhat higher ROF than an arquebus, a shorter range than both, and greater accuracy than both.

[Myrddraal]

However, a projectile launched by way of rapid conversion of solid to gas travelling further seems more likely (scientifcally speaking)

The thing is, I'm sure early gunpowder weapons were horribly inefficient. How much of that pressure was simply wasted (through leaks, the shot not fitting the barrel etc)

[SpencerH]

I would think that the longbows range would decrease in rain due to the stretching of the bowstring. OTOH gunpowder units were totally useless. Of course, any variation in ranges/effectiveness etc will require CA to re-introduce battlefield weather effects.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Arquebusiers did not have the range of the warbow. Yes they would dominate the battlefield after Pavia but the Longbow only faded from existance due to the easy training that gunmen had. It took years to train a quality bowmen but weeks for an average gunner. Throughout the 16th century in England especially in Henry VIII reign the warbow was still prefered over the gun. The ratio of 3-4 arrows fired from an average bowmen to one fired gun says to me the power of the bow over the weapon. Seasoned bowmen could probably fire 6 to the one of a gunman, perhaps more.

Many believed that a unit of longbow men put against infantry units armed with the musket in the 18th and 19th cenury would see the latter torn to ribbons. I think some people often look into the wet bowstring a bit too much. Most bowmen would keep the string safe from weather before the battle (usually wrapped around a body part safe from rain, you can guess what the obvious choice was) and even with rain could unleashed a hell of a barrage into infantry and cavalry formations. Prolonged combat would be a problem but most archers were there to break up enemy charges not to stop it. Most after a several volly's would retire behind or on the flanks of the dismouted men at arms and would enter the melee once the enemy was sufficently weakened by casualities and fatigue.

There is no way the Musket would have chance against the warbow. Rapid fire, greater range and better accuracy imo would see them destroyed within moments. Greater impact individually? Maybe. But the mass formations of archers producing a rain of arrows wouldn't give it much advantage in my opinion. The only time guns would get the better of it would be behind earthern forts and prepared postions from where to fire e.g Castillon

[Servius]

The TW games have often had novelty units that weren't particularly effective in history or in the game, but they put them in for fun. That's how I saw gunpowder units in Shogun and M1, Kerns and other javelin troops in M1, and certain Roman artillery pieces in Rome. Maybe this is another example of that.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The TW games have often had novelty units that weren't particularly effective in history or in the game, but they put them in for fun. That's how I saw gunpowder units in Shogun and M1, Kerns and other javelin troops in M1, and certain Roman artillery pieces in Rome. Maybe this is another example of that.


Mate the unit you refer to ask Kerns was a skirmisher unit in most Irish armies through the medieval period to the defeat of the O Donnell and O Neil army at Kinsale in the early 17th century. The were also used extensively in wars on the continent especially by Henry the VIII in France. They were hardy warriors and feared by their English enemies. Their appearance was seen in awe and many people in Britain would look on a Kern in amazement as if they were looking at a warrior from the Americas. Also their habit of taking enemy heads was frowned upon as well.

I never saw them as an insignificant or a novelty unit not in my campaigns anyway. I hope they have been added in the new game with Glibs aplenty

[ShadesWolf]

I would suspect it will just come down to time and money.
How much time have you got and what resources do you have....

If money is low then build gunpower units. On mass they could do quite a bit of damage....

If money is vaste, then build the superior longbow units...

[poo_for_brains]

I would suspect it will just come down to time and money.
How much time have you got and what resources do you have....

If money is low then build gunpower units. On mass they could do quite a bit of damage....

If money is vaste, then build the superior longbow units...

True. I just thought it would be weird to still be using bows after gunpowder is invented - kinda feels stupid.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The warbow was a tried and tested weapon. It was reliable in battle and had rarely let the English army down in battle. The gun was often more dangerous to its owner than an enemy. The weapon was erratic at best and you were better off beating the enemy with it as a club than firing it. The early 16th century saw though how trained gunmen could cause havoc. Pavia and Biccoca being the most obvious battle in question.

[cannon_fodder]

The TW games have often had novelty units that weren't particularly effective in history or in the game, but they put them in for fun. That's how I saw gunpowder units in Shogun and M1, Kerns and other javelin troops in M1, and certain Roman artillery pieces in Rome. Maybe this is another example of that.
"put them in for fun"? I can't say for the other things you mentioned, but whether or not you think they were effective, firearms saw widespread use in the closing stages of Sengoku Jidai. So their inclusion was rather important.

[Martinaz]

I fear that CA may accidently overpower gunpowder units. Arquebusiers in MTW were about exactly right.
In the time it was intvented, the knights were totaly surpised by those bullets becouse the bullets could go through the knight's armour. so strong was it.

[Furious Mental]

Yeah I think gunpowder weapons will probably be more effective against armour than other missile weapons.

[Kagemusha]

Here is an from one of my Ospreys about the range differences between the Japanese Yumi bow and an Teppo musket which was an matchlock musket type that arrived in Japan in 1542.Ofcourse the Yumi was lot weaker bow then the English longbow.But i think the picture gives out of good idea of a muskets range in 1500´s.

https://img395.imageshack.us/img395/971/therange2copyqq6.jpg
The values are from left to right: ideal range,effective killing range and max range.And this is against armoured opponents.

[Randarkmaan]

Yeah gunpowder weapons probably had a longer maximum range than longbows, but the thing is that most gunpowder weapons were very inaccurate and therefore it was hard to hit a far away target...

[Servius]

My appologies about novelty units. What I meant was that Kerns were weak in M1 (though they were tougher in the England campaign of VI) as were most gunpowder units in Shogun and M1. I have no idea how strong these units were in real life as I was born in 1979.

[cannon_fodder]

^ Oh, I see.

Kagemusha, I've read those same figures for bow and arquebus ranges. Perhaps CA needs to introduce (if they haven't already, I don't actually know) another value in ranged unit stats, which has to do with how much energy the projectile loses over a certain distance. Max, effective kill, and ideal ranges need to see representation for the arquebuse's merits to truly show.

[Ulstan]

"Yeah gunpowder weapons probably had a longer maximum range than longbows, but the thing is that most gunpowder weapons were very inaccurate and therefore it was hard to hit a far away target..."

Which is why you had gunpowder weapons firing en masse at a massed target if you wanted to be effective... at least up until the advent of rifled muskets and vastly greater accuracy. But that's how the bows were used too.

Sure the early muskets were no doubt inferior to bows, but eventually (obviously) they surpassed bows which is why basically *all* infantry units in the 17th and 18th centuries were using firearms and not bows. If the bow was a superior weapon, just harder to aim and taking longer to master, presumably we'd have seen all the 'elite' units in the army using bows and the common rabble using muskets - but this isn't what happened. Everyone wanted the guns. When european forces met natives still using bows and arrows, it was the natives trying to arm themselves with guns, not the europeans trying to arm themselves with bows. At some point then, muskets passed bows in terms of effectiveness, at what point this happened can be argued over, but one can guess that it was certainly no *later* than when the armies of the time began switching over to firearms, given the tendency to hold on to what is known and comfortable over embracing a new technology.

Muskets had a longer range and greater penetrating power and were easier to master. You could stick a bayonet on a musket and then musket armed troops were quite capable of storming enemy held positions and taking them in hand to hand combat. You can fire 'on the run' with a musket if you are doing close in fighting and an enemy target of opportunity presents itself. There is no scope for on the run firing of longbows and longbows would have to be ditched at once should hand to hand fighting ensue. Muskets can be fired from more positions than a longbow. You can lay in a ditch and fire a musket, be tired to the bone and still fire a musket with deadly force.

I think any rifled musket armed regiment of infantry in the 19th century would have torn a bow armed group to shreds if they stood around in the open field, and if they were engaged in trench or city fighting they musket group would have an even greater advantage.

[ajaxfetish]

When firearms were first introduced, they had both strengths and weaknesses compared to bows. Eventually those weaknesses were overcome, but most of that is beyond the scope of the game. What will make the relationship great is if CA can represent both their relative strengths (ease of training, lightweight ammunition, aiming without maintaining tension--also an advantage of crossbows--melee ability, penetrating power, etc), and their weaknesses (rate of fire, accuracy at range--the arrow has natural spin from its fletchings, while the musket had to wait for rifling--limitations in weather, cost to develop the technology, etc).

Both unit types should be useful, but should outshine each other depending on the situation and how well suited they are to face it.

Ajax

[sharrukin]

The bow was a superior weapon to the smoothbore musket.
The Panther tank was superior to the Sherman tank as well as the T-34 tank.
As military weapons of war however the T-34 and the Sherman were superior to the Panther, due to questions of industrial production, simplicity and numbers.
Military equipment has requirements that go beyond simple weapon quality.

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill bored, will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded...at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; I do maintain...no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket by the person who aimed at him."

- British Col. George Hanger, 1814

"A late 18th century Prussian experiment, in which a battalion of infantry fired at a target 100 feet long by 6 feet high, representing an enemy unit resulted in 25% hits at 225 yards, 40% hits at 150 yards and 60% hits at 75 yards. Under the stress of battle the proportion of hits would inevitably decline. In 1717 at the battle of Belgrade 2 Imperial battalions held their fire until their turkish opponents were only 30 paces away, but hit only 32 turks when they fired and were promptly overwhelmed."

"Prussian studies show that an infantry battalion could fire five shots in volley per minute, at an average rate of about two rounds per man per minute. While this put as much lead into the air as a modern machine gun, it did not mean that the fusillade hit as much, as during another musketry test conducted in 1813, another Prussian test battalion put just 40% of its shots into a target 6 feet high and 100 feet long at a range of 100 yards."

The advent of firearms allowed an increase in the number of men who could be dangerous on the battlefield. While less dangerous individually, the musketeer could be trained from lower quality human material and trained much more rapidly than a longbowman. This resulted in an increase in the size of armies from the 17th and 18th centuries onwards. From 1500 to 1700 the size of armies increased more than ten-fold. The inaccuracy of muskets required massed volley fire by low quality troops who could in times of peace be disbanded, and taken up again in times of war. This reduced pressure on the treasury and allowed increasingly powerful national states to monopolize military power.

The idea that militaries are engines of efficiency is simply wrong! The Caracole used by cavalry is a case in point. It was essentially a useless tactic that continued to be used despite this. Napoleon increased the effectiveness of cavalry by reintroducing the ancient lance for his cavalry. Of course by this time the advent of effective rifling for firearms, conical bullets, and magazines spelled the end of shock cavalry.

[Watchman]

The caracole worked right fine for the job it was designed for, namely dealing with pikemen and their inevitably accompanying musketeers through sheer volume of fire combined with the superior durability of armoured cavalrymen. It's not like cavalry could tackle pike by any other means than shooting them up anyway, not counting outflanking and suchlike.

It just wasn't a terribly effective tactic for dealing with other cavalrymen, not in the least because the pistols barely dented the sort of armour worn by heavy cavalry from beyond five meters; the reason it was nonetheless employed for the purpose for a while was primarily a question of the psychology and motivation of the soldiers who made up the heavy cavalry - mercenaries to a man and expensive to equip and train, both they and their commanders tended to be shall we say prudent on the battlefield.

Anyway, any decent war-bow in capable hands was by far superior a ranged weapon to any early man-portable firearm. Superior range and rate of fire for one. Firearms did have superior penetrating power to make up for their awful reloading times, much like heavy crossbows, but the very early ones in particular were pretty much short-range skirmish weapons. Crossbows kind of pwned them in effective range too.

What guns did have going for them (aside from issues like ease of use - they weren't much superior to the more accurate and longer-ranged crossbows in that regard either, AFAIK) was sheer psychological impact. The noise and smoke they made was just plain sacry, especially if they were fired en masse at close range - that they likely only caused superficial casualties was quite irrelevant in this respect. I've seen it claimed that in the first battle ever the Russians employed firearms against their ever-troublesome steppe-nomad neighbours, the latter were so disturbed by the first volley (which killed no men) they quit the field wholesale.

Terror weapons, basically. The more sophisticated arquebuses and muskets were actually some good also for killing people rather than just frightening them. In that, although they still lost out in accuracy, they did most of the things heavy crossbows could, some rather better, and also had a few subtler perks. One was the fact they could punch through things like ship railings and similar obstacles rather more effectively. Another was the relatively small size of their ammunition - a musketeer could carry as much as sixty shots' worth without particular difficulties, and this was regarded as sufficient for an entire battle. And they took up rather little space; that meant the musketeers could be more densely massed, compensating for lousy accuracy with sheer density of fire as well as the fright effect. And of course an arquebus make a whole lot better club in a pinch than a bow or a crossbow.

Respectable accuracy with even smoothbore muskets is perfectly achievable; after all, they were used by professional hunters too and those folks obviously weren't big on missing their mark. The thing just is that this takes a lot of practice, not in the least due to the habit of round balls shot out of smooth barrels tending to noticeably wander off their original trajectory rather noticeably, and this was something the rank-and-file musketeers of Western armies didn't get. Indeed, marksmanship practice was regarded as waste of costly gunpowder... Skilled shooters were nonetheless often picked out for marksman duties and often used by far more accurate rifled weapons; Gustavus II Adolphus of Sweden went so far as to raise a crack unit of marksmen from the gamekeepers of his royal hunting resorts when he went off to the Thirty Years' War.

As for the longbows, one gets a very strong impression they began to be increasingly relegated to what might be politely called "second-line positions" and decreasing in military importance and usefulness from something like mid-late 1400s onwards. I know they were still occasionally seen in the hands of English soldiery around the middle of the 17th century - poor mercenaries abroad who hadn't yet been able to get anything better and poorly equipped levy units mainly - but seem to have been considered indifferent for battlefield use. Personally I'm guessing this was simply due to ever-increasing proliferation of increasingly good armour. Well-padded mail alone can stop arrows launched from even composite bows (which are by far more powerful than self-bows like the English longbow), as well attested from the Crusades (and the fact the assorted composite-bow enthusiast cultures seemed to regard mail as perfectly viable battle gear). Even composite bows, nevermind now self-bows, need to be uncomfortably close by to have a decent chance of penetrating solid plate armour, an obviously challenging prospect on level battlefield but less of a problem for, say, Ottoman naval archers in boarding actions. By middle 1400s in any case just about any troops worth mentioning would be wearing at the very least mail topped with hardened leather or iron in some form or another; the well-equipped warriors would have high-quality tempered-steel articulated full plate. At least the front ranks of pikeman formations were regularly decked out in considerable amounts of solid plate already by the Late Middle Ages and by the 1500s at least a breastplate plus helmet was almost the norm. Thow in developements in field artillery and general improvements in overall military professionalism, discipline, organisation, battlefield command-and-control and tactics (ie. no more blind rushes à la Grecy and Agincourt), and one can see how the longbow found it increasingly difficult to make the cut.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The Longbow was used significantly through the sixteenth century, and still in mass numbers. I would say after the battle of Pinkie in 1547 was when the Longbow was finally being edged out for the gun and that was just due to the fact that it was easier to use and to train men with rather than any advantage in fire power.

I still believe that the artillery used by the French was vital in the reudction of the fortresses in Normandy and Gascony but if we look at the battles near the close of the HYW their was alot more than to it than cannon winning the day. Formingy saw the English outnumbered with inexperience troops from England, attacked on two fronts and adopted an L shaped formation and after an bombardment by two culverins were forced on the attack. Castillon saw the cannon and small arms protected by ditch and pallisade as the French still feared the Longbow in open field.

[luo bin]

This is a good thread where lots of people really have an oppinion. So im going to add mine...

I didnt notice anybody else mention this but Agincourt, the pinacle of English longbowmanship also saw the first ever battle fatality at the hands of gun powder (in europe anyway). For those who forgot/dont know this was by a french canon that fired a vindictive shot at an englishmen as the french army.........pulled back.....In life the longbowman made way for the gun for a number of reasons, most of which have crept up here. Technology moving on, better armour, money (longbows being expensive and needing good wood which is a rarity in england after the navy knocked down all the tress).

Other things were just happening in the world. A longbow in europe was only good if it came from england...but the world is bigger than england and in the end the musket was cheaper and eventually proved much more conveniant.

in MTW this can just be shown by basic armour eventually getting better so that it stops the bow, forcing development of gun troops. faster, more effective fighting by newer infantry regiments too. After agincourt there was no more extensive use of cavalry, they became a bonus feature rather than the main attraction. Why? because the chaps on their own two feet got better organised.

so....

[cannon_fodder]

Crossbows kind of pwned them in effective range too.

What guns did have going for them (aside from issues like ease of use - they weren't much superior to the more accurate and longer-ranged crossbows in that regard either, AFAIK)
Good call on the accuracy of crossbows, but only the heaviest of crossbows that used tension of steel rather than wood (which were introduced late anyway) were longer-ranged than arquebuses. Most medieval crossbows had a far inferior range to a longbow, which itself had a comparable maximum range to an arquebus.

The "effective range" one is tricky. It's been shown that the arquebus was extremely powerful even over long ranges, but I don't know about the crossbow, never read anything about that. I think the longbow's poor effective kill range is a consequence of the necessarily high trajectory and low (compared to a crossbow) draw. I would imagine that due to the lower trajectory and higher power a crossbow would have a much higher effective kill range than a longbow, but I don't know about a comparison to the arquebus. Unless, of course, you're talking about accuracy...

[spacedouthamster]

It has been shown in various historical reenactments by historians and scientists that the longbow was unable to penetrate plate armour, as worn by most knights by the time of the 15th century, they even reckon that the victory at agincourt was due to the fact the arrows killed the knights horses and the riders got trappled into the mud by those following behind.

Therefore by the time muskets become widely available the effectiveness of longbows would be decreased. so longbows pro, fast rof, cheap to train, widely available,

cons, little armour penetration, no scare factor.

firearms pro, effective against all armour, scare enemies

cons, long reload time, don't work in rain, expensive to train.

historically firearms didn't really become popular in england until Henry VIII, even in the wars of the roses at the end of the 15th century only a few cannon were in use.

[Furious Mental]

I'd say longbows are pretty scary if one has to advance through a cloud of arrows. Real life isn't like a Total War game where some programmer designates certain weapons as "scary". If it is effective then it is probably also scary same as if it is novel it is probably also scary.

[econ21]

It has been shown in various historical reenactments by historians and scientists that the longbow was unable to penetrate plate armour, as worn by most knights by the time of the 15th century, they even reckon that the victory at agincourt was due to the fact the arrows killed the knights horses and the riders got trappled into the mud by those following behind.

I'm also sceptical about the ability of longbows to penetrate plate - perhaps they could if they hit at certain points and ranges, but not with the reliability of gunpowder weapons. However, on the specific point of Agincourt - the French advanced dismounted (perhaps partly from fear of what the archers could do to horses) so it was not the arrows killing horses or riders being trappled that explains the victory. It's rather like Cannae or Blenheim - one of those iconic victories that are hard to explain in simplistic terms (in all three some kind of "pressed too close together" penalty would be important). It will be interesting to see how CA model it - hefty experience advantages for the English, plus mud/exhaustion penalties for the French, perhaps?

[rory_20_uk]

Concerning muskets in STW I found them extremely useful when used correctly. Although their accuracy was not great, and rate of fire not that good either, they did slaughter at point blank and scare the enemy. So, at the crest of a hill end of a bridge bieng "greeted" by three units of muskets would inflict massive casualties on any unit type. And since there's so much ammo they'd go on firing again and again, whereas bows quickly ran out.

I thought that Panther tanks had a tendancy to catch on fire - especially in the early models.

~:smoking:

[AussieGiant]

sharrukin post explains why the transition from Bows to Muskets occured. To repeat, the main reason was:

The time and effort needed to train a man to weild a bow effectively was far greater than a musket. This simple point meant that over some centuries the long bow was dropped in favour of muskets which allowed "the under six foot and not as strong as an ox men" to participate in ranged war:laugh4:

The minimum physical requirements of a man to be effective "en Mass" with a musket meant that much larger armies could be raised and used effectively.

Both weapons used massed formation to be deadly in battle but as an individual weapon the musket did not reach the level of precision of a Longbow until the advent of rifles in the late 1700's.

Stats:

The average Longbow could be shot between 200 and 300 yards and was accurate as an individual weapon out to 200 yards. Given a man could fire 20 arrows a minute it was deadly.

The average musket (not rifle) of the 1700's, and please note this is some 200 years after the time we are talking about in this game was as follows.

British Smooth Bore musket. Effective range 50 to 70 yards. You would be very lucky to hit a target at 100 yards. MAXIMUM shots per minute by the British (THE BEST AND FASTEST OF THE Napoleonic Era) was 4 shots per minute. The French and other continental armies shot between 2 and 3 per minute maximum.

So you can see that as an individual weapon there is no comparison, and this is with a musket of the 1700's and not the early 1500 or 1600's in which the MTWII is set.

In the late 1700's the British invented the Rifle. Basically the same as as a musket except 5 to 7 grooves were spiraled into the muzzel. This weapon could be aimed effectively out to 200 yards but a marksman and reached recorded shots or 300 yards and more by real experts. due to the grooving of the barrel this weapon could only be fired about 2 times per minute by an expert.

I'd like the recommend two series of books to everyone who wants to learn more about Muskets and Longbows.

If you want to get a great and realistic account of Professional Longbowmen in medieval times read Bernard Cornwells "The Grail Quest" series. Reading about Thomas of Hookton's adventures will get you ready for some real MTWII action in November and December!!

Equally if you want to learn more about muskets and the like, read Bernard Cornwells Sharpe series.

To all the English fella's here he will be well known, and Sean Bean did the character of Richard Sharpe proud :2thumbsup:

All I can say that Mr Cornwell does an enourmous amount of research to make his novels as historically accurate as possible and you will get a great feel for this subject as a whole by reading his books.

P.S. How CA are going to balance this out will be really interesting!!

[AussieGiant]

I'm also sceptical about the ability of longbows to penetrate plate -

Certainly Econ Bokin arrows may not penerate High end FULL Plate.

But, getting hit 2 or 3 or 4 times per minute, while not killing you outright will render you less than effective. Think of it like individual "supression fire" of a knight :2thumbsup:

At 100 yards with a relatively flat trajectory;

1st hit RHS Chest; Loud thump, balance momentarily lost...feels like a small horse just kicked you.

2nd hit, Shield; Arrow caught, left arm ripped back violently..no apparent damage.

3rd hit, glancing blow to helmet; head snaps back...and to the left, vision clouds, 2nd degree whiplash sustained.

Distance travelled...40 yards, 60 to go. 3 more hits to take and each one harder than the last.

I'm not saying the Longbow has punched through Plate Armour...but does it really need to?? Once the young French laddie has made it past all that, and he can still stand upright and still knows the name of the girl he spent the night with before the battle, then there are some crazed english physco's wait to cave his skull in with a war hammer.

[CBR]

The average Longbow could be shot between 200 and 300 yards and was accurate as an individual weapon out to 200 yards. Given a man could fire 20 arrows a minute it was deadly.
Could yes could. Its interesting to note that Simon Stanley(one of the few people who shoot strong 160+ pound bows) says he does not like to shoot more than 6 shots/minute. It doesnt take that much practice to shoot 20+ shots/minute but generally its done with lighter 60-70 pound bows AFAIK.


So you can see that as an individual weapon there is no comparison, and this is with a musket of the 1700's and not the early 1500 or 1600's in which the MTWII is set.
There is actually not much difference in quality between 16th century and 19th century muskets. Tests have shown comparable accuracy.


In the late 1700's the British invented the Rifle.
No they introduced a rifle to their own army. Rifles had been used a long time before that.


I'd like the recommend two series of books to everyone who wants to learn more about Muskets and Longbows.
TBH I prefer history books and not works of fiction. I watched Sharpe at Waterloo and if that is representative of the authors historical research then I will put his works in the same category as Braveheart.


CBR

[CBR]

However, on the specific point of Agincourt - the French advanced dismounted (perhaps partly from fear of what the archers could do to horses) so it was not the arrows killing horses or riders being trappled that explains the victory.
The French dismounted because a big mounted attack against a prepared dismounted force of men-at-arms would do them no good, with or without bows to potientially disorder the cavalry.


It will be interesting to see how CA model it - hefty experience advantages for the English, plus mud/exhaustion penalties for the French, perhaps?
Yes most likely lots of valor and from the screenshots I saw about half the infantry were billmen.


CBR

[econ21]

The French dismounted because a big mounted attack against a prepared dismounted force of men-at-arms would do them no good, with or without bows to potientially disorder the cavalry.

Yes, indeed. This partly takes us back to the "myth of the cavalry charge" debate - ie how powerful are cavalry vs infantry. Instinctively, I am on the side that says charging dismounted men-at-arms is not smart, but I know others may disagree. BTW, I was interested to see that M2TW had some dismounted knights with spears - I always thought dismounted knights should have negated the cavalry charge in MTW; maybe I'll get my wish with M2TW.

However, I also think the longbow was also a factor. The knights might be in full plate, but the horses were not. Moreover, cavalry vs steady infantry might just be relatively bloodless Mexican standoff. If the infantry are also backed by lethal missiles, it becomes a very bad situation for the cavalry.

I may be wrong, but it seems that dismounting knights was a particularly favoured tactic of the English (less common with continental armies). Part of the reason for this may have been that the English, almost uniquely, had a significant contingent of longbowmen. There is a synergy between the longbow and anti-cavalry heavy foot: either one alone is not particularly decisive against mounted knights.

[Randarkmaan]

Just one thing I have to add... Dismounted knights and men-at-arms in the late middle-ages often used polearms and would have been effective enough against cavalry if they used those weapons.

[Ulstan]

"The Longbow was used significantly through the sixteenth century, and still in mass numbers. I would say after the battle of Pinkie in 1547 was when the Longbow was finally being edged out for the gun and that was just due to the fact that it was easier to use and to train men with rather than any advantage in fire power."

Then why didn't all the 'elite' units still use longbows if they were a superior weapon?

I can see arming your hastily raised levies with a handgun and 2 weeks of training, but your elite standing army would be armed with the longbow, if it truly was a better weapon.

[Puzz3D]

Perhaps CA needs to introduce (if they haven't already, I don't actually know) another value in ranged unit stats, which has to do with how much energy the projectile loses over a certain distance. Max, effective kill, and ideal ranges need to see representation for the arquebuse's merits to truly show.
This has never been in the Total War battle engine. The projectile has constant energy which makes it impossible to properly model the ballistics. If you make the weapon highly effective at short range, it's too effective at long range. If you make the weapon have low effectiveness at long range, it's too weak at short range, although if you balance the morale, then you can get a routing effect at short range.



True, but a bowstring isn't very effective if it gets wet.
In the older battle engine, bows had reduced accuracy in rain. The amount of the reduction depended on how hard it was raining (light, medium or heavy). The range of 120 meters which represented an effective range rather than a maximum range wasn't reduced.

Inadvertently, muskets didn't fire in rain in original STW, but this was changed in WE/MI so that they did. I then was able to measure another effect which was misfires in rain. Light rain had 25% misfires, medium rain 50% misfires and heavy rain 75% misfires.

[satchef1]

CA should just give gunners a production time of 0, it would represent the speed they can be trained at (you could train a full line in the recruitment bar in a single turn).
I did it in M:TW and it worked, gave them a purpose. Ended up using Longbows + Arbalasters for my main forces and Peasant (gave them 0 production time aswell) + Aquibuser armies for emergencies (like faction re-emergences, or getting badly defeated on my borders and needing to reinforce (read: spam) a provence quickly. The Aquibusers would still get ripped to shreads by decent bowmen but thier numbers allowed them some advantage

[ajaxfetish]

"The Longbow was used significantly through the sixteenth century, and still in mass numbers. I would say after the battle of Pinkie in 1547 was when the Longbow was finally being edged out for the gun and that was just due to the fact that it was easier to use and to train men with rather than any advantage in fire power."

Then why didn't all the 'elite' units still use longbows if they were a superior weapon?

I can see arming your hastily raised levies with a handgun and 2 weeks of training, but your elite standing army would be armed with the longbow, if it truly was a better weapon.
Perhaps this has more to do with the concept of recruitment pools than relative merits. As I understand it, longbow proficiency wasn't something taught in military training, but a skill that had to be trained by constant practice from youth up. Standing armies I believe were still a rather new concept at the times under discussion, and even then would rely on a pool of ready-trained longbowmen, which had been steadily decreasing for a long time. Also, longbowmen were never trained to be an elite. They were trained for cheap mass in the army. They required little armor, no horse, and had low enough social status not to merit decent wages.

Ajax

[AussieGiant]

TBH I prefer history books and not works of fiction. I watched Sharpe at Waterloo and if that is representative of the authors historical research then I will put his works in the same category as Braveheart.CBR

Just a note, I was not talking about the Sharpe TV series, but Sharpe the Books. His account of Waterloo from the point of view of his main character was very good. He even provides historical notes after each book in which he explains and attributes what really happen and how he "placed" his main character for maximum effect. I believe he has visited over 80% of the main battles sites for his books. As far as I can tell from cross referencing histroy he is very accurate.

His books are fiction but they are as historically accurate in setting and accuracy as far I can tell. His only disclaimer is that he is telling a story inside the period he is writing in.

Otherwise thanks for all the clarifications.

A question.

Do you know who invented the Rifling concept? I thought it was the English because as far as I know they were the first to really use the weapon in their standing army.

[Sir Moody]

From a quick google the only thing i can find is the technique of rifling was develope din the 15th century but was very expensive and never made into the hands of Infratry for almost 3 centruries. As for the British rifle i know that the Prussian light infantry were also using rifles at that time and im not sure which started first.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

"The Longbow was used significantly through the sixteenth century, and still in mass numbers. I would say after the battle of Pinkie in 1547 was when the Longbow was finally being edged out for the gun and that was just due to the fact that it was easier to use and to train men with rather than any advantage in fire power."

Then why didn't all the 'elite' units still use longbows if they were a superior weapon?

I can see arming your hastily raised levies with a handgun and 2 weeks of training, but your elite standing army would be armed with the longbow, if it truly was a better weapon.


I think I have answered this in my earlier posts. The practise of archery in England was a long and difficult process with years of training needed to become a good bowman. Although the bow was still used extensively in the North the weapon had long become obsolete in the south. The gun was cheaper, easiier to use and inventually stocked in bigger numbers and the common of law of archery as a pass time that nearly every young male took part in was gradually ingnored and fell into decline

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

TBH I prefer history books and not works of fiction. I watched Sharpe at Waterloo and if that is representative of the authors historical research then I will put his works in the same category as Braveheart.


CBR

Cornwall's books are fantastic mate. The series however is rancid to the state on nausea. We all love Bean and back in the day when you were to young to know better it was good. Looking back now it really is as bad as anything you could watch. The acting in the last episode is appalling. The death of his mates hagman and harris at the farm house made me laugh my head off and it still does.

[Sir Moody]

ok found a better article

http://www.history-magazine.com/rifle.html

from this (if its reliable) the Austrians and Prussians were the first to field infatry using Rifled barrels

[AussieGiant]

Yes the Prussians were also using it.

That's correct now you mention it Sir Moody cheers for that.

Anyway my point stands. Not until the late 1700's did any army use rifles in their armies. Only at that stage did the Longbow have an equivalent gunpowder replacement in terms of statistics.

I think everyone gets this now.

In the end, firearms worked and replaced the Longbow because guys who couldn't pull 125lbs back to their ear 10 times a minute could still do some damage with a musket :2thumbsup:

Additionally the fact that after some months you could get any old conscript to fire 3 shots a minute en mass at a target 70 yards away. You'd have very little chance of doing that using a Longbow and a 175lb raw recruit.

Don't forget the muskets maintenance and production characteristics superseded the Longbow. Especially true once the industrial revolution started poking its head into the equation.

Anyway, I still like the Longbow, so I am really interested in how CA "manages" the early introduction of gunpowder units to the game. At least they did it before some years ago :laugh4:

[Gealai]

Rifling increased the accuracy heavily, but was an more expensive technique and increased the loading time. Thus it was mostly used for hunting rifles, initially just for the richer classes.

The Jaeger units were often drawn - as the name says - from hunters and forestmen and buerger, which were able to equip themselves. Most oft them grew up with hunting also rifled guns.

The french and bavarian suffered in 1809 a lot of smallscale and midscale defeats against Tyrolean Schuetzen which were basically trained militia, many of them hunters or poachers, with a faible for sharpshooting contests. Using ambushes from broken terrain on high ground with accurate riflefire and prepared rockslides they gave the french more than one bloody lesson...


The Japanese said that a gun was supreme in a siege and they had a lot of great archers with arguable equal or better bows than the english..

I'll try to find the exact source of that last quote (comparing gun and bow).

[Wishazu]

Certainly Econ Bokin arrows may not penerate High end FULL Plate.

But, getting hit 2 or 3 or 4 times per minute, while not killing you outright will render you less than effective. Think of it like individual "supression fire" of a knight :2thumbsup:

At 100 yards with a relatively flat trajectory;

1st hit RHS Chest; Loud thump, balance momentarily lost...feels like a small horse just kicked you.

2nd hit, Shield; Arrow caught, left arm ripped back violently..no apparent damage.

3rd hit, glancing blow to helmet; head snaps back...and to the left, vision clouds, 2nd degree whiplash sustained.

Distance travelled...40 yards, 60 to go. 3 more hits to take and each one harder than the last.

I'm not saying the Longbow has punched through Plate Armour...but does it really need to?? Once the young French laddie has made it past all that, and he can still stand upright and still knows the name of the girl he spent the night with before the battle, then there are some crazed english physco's wait to cave his skull in with a war hammer.

The best post in the thread. I agree that a longbow wouldnt need to be able to punch through armour to be effective. At agincourt the arrows flew so thick and into concentrated groups of men that arrows were bound to hit vulnerable points and disorient a target. As to fear effects of weapons, try to imagine standing under a hail of arrows...

[Watchman]

At Agincourt the French actually tried the sensible approach of first clearing the damned archers off the flanks with fast strike troops (ie. cavalry). That failed, but AFAIK mainly because the cavalry wings were badly understrenght from what they were supposed to be (feudal military aristocracy not being famous for strict adherence to discipline or orders, quite a few knights and men-at-arms who were supposed to participate failed to do so). The ground wasn't exactly the best possible either and the stakes the English had erected as an anti-cavalry measure (an increasingly common tactic at the time, it was also used by the Low Countries militias and Ottoman infantry) didn't particularly help either. I've read the horses were only barded at the front to save weight and maintain speed, and did not suffer overmuch from the archery until the cavalry realized the futility of the attempt and turned tail, at which the beasts' rumps became painfully exposed to flying pointy things.

The main body of the French men-at-arms then advanced on foot. This was a perfectly normal tactic at the time. Even elite cavalry notoriously can't really make much of a dent even on commoner militias with shields and spears should the latter hold their line and formation, due to certain peculiar dynamics inherent in how horses (being the skittish herbivores they are at the core) behave when faced with such solid obstacles. Throwing cavalry against highly trained and extremely well equipped heavy infantry who can pretty much be counted not to even blink before shredding the horsemen with their assorted pole-cutlery, like dismounted men-at-arms, would pretty much be throwing them away. In a set-piece battle a typical army of the time normally only kept a small part of its men-at-arms mounted for pursuit duties, strikes directed at possible weaker portions of the enemy line, flanking and suchlike (assorted lighter equipped cavalry would also have been present in almost all instances and typically worked together with the mounted heavies).

Alas, due to certain deficencies feudal troops tended to have in terms of large-unit drill, command-and-control and similar issues of organisation and coordination what the huge number of MAAs present advanced in was really just a huge, unwieldy mob; the commanders could really do very little else with it than point it in the correct direction and hope for the best. The English longbows couldn't really do much real damage against such well-protected troops, many of whom also carried shields, but the constant rain of wood and metal they subjected them to would certainly have been very unnerving (made no less so by the way a random arrow would every now and then find someone's eyeslit or a weak spot in armour if only by raw statistical probability), and no doubt made the French MAAs "bunch up" towards the centre away from the troublesome archers. Which of course did nothing to the manageability and general usefulness of the already haphazard and unwieldy mass.

After trudging over considerable stretch of muddy field (churned up by the horses of the failed flank attacks too), in full armour with the visors down to keep arrows away from faces, in a very crowded and no doubt rather confused mass, the French heavies were naturally enough tired as Hell by the time they reached the waiting line of their fully rested English colleagues. By this time the longbows may also have been able to inflict some actual damage by firing directly into the ranks at close range, but in any case the column had little momentum left and kind of got stuck against the English heavies. The rear ranks trying to push forward (and/or get further away from the increasingly pesky archers at the flanks) would not have helped matters any.

Then to boot the longbowmen at the flanks put aside their bows, grabbed assorted mallets and axes and swords and whatever ironmongery they now had available, and pulled a double envelopement. Now, head one even stone dead tired MAAs would no doubt have torn just about any number of the lightly equipped archers to bits in hand-to-hand combat; they were highly trained and very well equipped experts on the field after all, whereas the archers were neither. But attacking the flanks of a confused, tired mass the bowmen, nimble on the muddy ground in their light equipement, were quite lethal enough to ensure the main French heavy column was history.

Remember: the longbow was never a true battle-winning weapon. Rather its efficient and judicious use, and the considerable shortcomings of the French military system (still based on feudal levies, whereas the English armies on the Continent were more professional "state mercenaries"), allowed the English to triumph even at severe numerical disadvantage with field armies consisting to a large part of the "cheap and cheerful" archers and for the period fairly small numbers of the very expensive men-at-arms. The longbowmen couldn't really do all that much damage to the enemy heavy troops, but they could affect, distrupt and channel their movements so their own heavies could better deal with them, as well as cause heavy damage to the assorted lighter support troops. What really tilted the balance in French favour was not finding a "miracle weapon" of their own in artillery - although that certainly didn't hurt - but rather modernizing the military system to do what its commanders needed and wanted it to rather than what the rank-and-file of feudal warrior aristocracy were capable of and felt like doing.

It should also be kept in mind that even armies based on horse-archers wielding the by far more powerful reflex composite bow tended to make a point of having at least small detachements of heavy shock cavalry at their disposal. Even for such forces the ability to smash weakened enemy formations through shock action and mounting immediate pursuit (and of course countering such attempts from enemy heavies) seems to have been if nothing else a good way to dispose of the remnants of the enemy, instead of spending God knows how long pouring arrows at their slowly dwindling shieldwalls.


The technique of rifling barrels to spin-stabilize musket balls was known very early on, AFAIK. I've read the idea was derived from the fletching used in arrows to impart similar gyrostabilization. However, for the rifling to be effective the ball had to fit tightly into the barrel, which duly made reloading muzzle-loaders in general and long-arms in particular something of a challenge. I've read estimates, based on contemporary accounts, that a standard smoothbore musket with loose-fitting balls took about half a minute to reload (more experienced men were faster); a rifle took roughly double that or more. Thus, rifles in military use were by and large confined to sharpshooters and small elite units of marksmen (they typically hunted down enemy officers, standard-bearers, musicians and C^2 specialists aside from plain old skirmishing); the line infantry blasted off volleys of rather inaccurate smoothbore musketry at rather short ranges, their formations essentially acting as giant shotguns.

Might as well. Unstabilized spherical projectiles, of somewhat questionable shape and bouncing off the walls of the barrel every this way and that before clearing it, are about as ballistically sucky as anything you can fire out of a gun can get. Not only does the shape of the ball give it some serious air-resistance drag, its random spin does nothing to improve its energy retention. Most pistols, for example, actually had muzzle velocities in the supersonic range, comparable to modern 9mm (their typical bore size was in the 13-15mm range). But they could not be counted on to penetrate armour from further than about 5-10 meters away, and were next to useless against anything at ranges over 15 meters or so; that's some serious energy loss there.

Even balls from long-barreled muskets, should they actually hit, at long range have been described by contemporaries as feeling like "strong blows" that merely bruised through clotches.

Conversely balls spin-stabilized by rifled barrels, while still suffering from poor aerodynamics, at least had a stable spin around their flight path and flew straight. They were both accurate and effective at markedly greater distances - some rifled cavalry pistols were actually meant to counter enemy skirmishers (these often had detachable stocks), and Prince Rupert (of the English Civil War fame) reputedly once shot a weathercock off a bell tower with his rifled wheellock pistols to win a bet.

Given the rather considerable shortcomings of balls as projectiles it's actually kind of weird that the by far more effective conical bullet wasn't developed before mid-1800s...

[AussieGiant]

Nice Post Watchman.

Can I ask what your profession is?

[Wishazu]

He watches things :) mostly the History Channel by the look of it :idea2:

[AussieGiant]

LOL Wishazu.

He sure does watch things.

By the way thanks for the compliment before.

This has certainly been a good thread. Lot's of ideas and points have been made.

I certainly believe the Longbow is "as advertised", if not a bit more when everything is taken into account.

I can't believe we are only 2 months to the day away from seeing this game in action.

[Vladimir]

You forgot to mention who developed the "mini ball". ~;)

:france:

[Wishazu]

LOL Wishazu.

By the way thanks for the compliment before.

I can't believe we are only 2 months to the day away from seeing this game in action.

No worries mate. Your post made me laugh out loud whilst reading it :)

M2TW looks set to be alot of the things that we all hoped RTW would be :)

[cannon_fodder]

Might as well. Unstabilized spherical projectiles, of somewhat questionable shape and bouncing off the walls of the barrel every this way and that before clearing it, are about as ballistically sucky as anything you can fire out of a gun can get. Not only does the shape of the ball give it some serious air-resistance drag, its random spin does nothing to improve its energy retention. Most pistols, for example, actually had muzzle velocities in the supersonic range, comparable to modern 9mm (their typical bore size was in the 13-15mm range). But they could not be counted on to penetrate armour from further than about 5-10 meters away, and were next to useless against anything at ranges over 15 meters or so; that's some serious energy loss there.
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/engin/home/material/ancient/AW_poster.jpg
Check that out. Supposing they're talking about point-blank shots with each weapon (if they're not, it only aids my arguement), you're suggesting that the ball loses about 30% of its energy during the first 15m of its 400m journey. I know that drag would reduce with velocity, but that seems rather unlikely to me. You can also take into account the fact that a ball that does not have the power to kill will still horribly maim.

[AussieGiant]

No worries mate. Your post made me laugh out loud whilst reading it :)

M2TW looks set to be alot of the things that we all hoped RTW would be :)

Hi Wishazu,

It seemed like a worth while attempt at inserting some attempt at a eral example of what might happen.

I hope and pray it will be a great game when it is released. I really hope patches deal with a few minor issues.

[Vanya]

GAH!

Vanya has yearned for the days of the Wet Gunny Wedgie of Doom! Now, the WGWD shall return and mop the fields of battle with their scalps again!

To improve morale, Vanya will introduce bald generals wearing toupees. This will allow them to not "die" when losing their hair. Funny how mere mortals worry about such vain things as "hair" and "keeping a head on their shoulders". If nothing else, it should provide some comic relief to the soon-to-be-damned to see a general fumble with fake hair!

GAH!

[R'as al Ghul]

[..] GAH!

:laugh4: Thanks for posting. Good to see you back....

[Bagpuss]

This thread has been a pleasure to read ,cheers

can I just add I do like the History channel on Sky ,lol an see nothing wrong in their excellent medieval war progs like Master of Defense ,Weapons That Made Britain, etc
an I think it was that barmy but good historian guy Mike loades that proved that the Longbow arrow could easily piece the French armour ,if chainmail underneath the shock /impact could kill as well...

[maestro]

I saw that, too. I've definitely seen programs on the telly with people shooting through leather, mail and plate armour from considerable distances with longbows.

No idea about muskets, though....... if only they had a Desert Eagle ~:)

[ElectricEel]

I've definitely seen programs on the telly with people shooting through leather, mail and plate armour from considerable distances with longbows.

Most of the mail around nowadays is massively inferior in quality to the mail that would be found on a medieval battlefield. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_mail) has this to say about modern mail usage:
Mail is now used in protective clothing for butchers (against meat-packing equipment), scuba divers (against shark teeth) and animal control officers (against animal teeth). The British police use mail gloves for dealing with knife-armed aggressors. The military also uses mail vests for the same reason. Modern re-enactors of medieval battles and living history also use mail in combat. In the little combat use that mail armor sees nowadays, it is not required to deflect anything more dangerous than knives or animal teeth. In re-enactment, the re-enactors are either using fake weapons not designed to kill, or following a strict coreography in order to avoid maiming each other. Good-quality mail requires more time and effort to make than poor-quality mail, and understandably, most people and organizations are not willing to pay for good-quality mail when they can get a cheaper product that is adequate for their purproses. Good-quality mail is thus mostly made for wealthier re-enactors who want to pay extra to use something as close to the real armor as possible. The demand there is limited, thus little good-quality mail is produced. As a consequence, it can be hard to get hold of, and because of this, and often lacking expertise on the subject, the people doing the tests usually end up using poor-quality armor. This should be true for plate armour, as well. I will note that at least one History Channel program that included tests like this has used butted mail, which is greatly inferior in every aspect compared to good-quality riveted mail that would have been used by knights throughout the medieval period.

In addition, usually mail was worn over padding. The padding might be easily penetrated by an arrow when worn alone, and an arrow might penetrate mail significantly, but tests indicate that when they are worn together, the arrow imparts a sufficiently large part of its energy to the mail that the padding may offer enought resistance to stop it from penetrating significantly. This fits in with the contemporary accounts of numerous arrows sticking from mail-clad soldiers. Again, good-quality padding consisting of numerous layers of cloth is probably rather difficult to find in the modern world.

[Freedom Onanist]

It seems to me that in all these discussions of the usefulness of the Longbow the salient point has been overlooked. What is indisputable is that English armies used the longbow in large numbers throughout the period of the Hundred Years war and beyond (War of the Roses). It was a mainstay of the weapons mix. They must have seen some value in it beyond many of the incidental effects mentioned in this thread, they must have know they were on to something good. The fact that they were used in such large numbers argues for the fact that the English DID see these weapons as battle winning devices. And after all they were there, putting their trust in the abilities of the weapon to deliver on the day. If the only effect of a longbow arrow was to deliver a hefty punch would the arrow heads be of the bodkin variety and not of a blunter form which would have been easier and cheaper to produce whilst (arguably) delivering more shock energy? It seems to me dubious to argue that people who had direct and real experience of the longbow would invest so much trust and resource in it otherwise of a period of several centuries. I don't exactly see what the argument can be? The English introduced a major change to the usual weapons mix of medieval armies, following this the effectiveness of their armies increased dramatically. I am not denying there were many other factors at play, but I don't think the causal link can be denied.

[maestro]

Electric Eel, whilst what you say is, indeed true. Nowhere did anyone mention TV programs testing longbows against modern mail and armour. I've seen plenty of programs on UKTV History and the History Channel and the such like with proper, anal historians recreating armour of all kind using medieval methods and then dressing up a medieval straw dummy in the armour and shooting at it with medieval weapons.

Whilst I agree with everything you say, it's kind of a moot point in this circumstance cause I've definitely seen it done on telly with "the real McCoy" ~:)

[Freedom Onanist]

Back to the topic of longbow v firearms. To me there can be little doubt that a unit of Longbowmen would decimate any arquebus/musket opponent. Rate of fire, range and accuracy (rifling not withstanding) are all on the bow's side. The question then is why did England abandon them? Well, as ha been pointed out they didn't entirely for quite some time (even Drake had some in the 1570's). However, the Hundred Years war and the subsequent War of the Roses especially had a serious impact on English society in terms of its ability to provide trained archers. Handguns really made their full impact in a period when England was recuperating from these and dealing with such internal upheavals as the Reformation. Luckily for England its continental neighbours were more occupied with their own disputes to look much its way. By the time England re-emerges onto the European scene as it where there is no longer an archer recruitment pool available. Expediency dictated the use of handguns.

[LadyAnn]

GAH!

Vanya has yearned for the days of the Wet Gunny Wedgie of Doom! Now, the WGWD shall return and mop the fields of battle with their scalps again!

To improve morale, Vanya will introduce bald generals wearing toupees. This will allow them to not "die" when losing their hair. Funny how mere mortals worry about such vain things as "hair" and "keeping a head on their shoulders". If nothing else, it should provide some comic relief to the soon-to-be-damned to see a general fumble with fake hair!

GAH!

Weeeeeeee Vanya!

We prefer that the enemies shave their head clean so we could do a clean chop.

Anniep

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Cavalry vs Longbow -> Patay

More Cavalry vs Longbow, with initial artillery skirmish -> Formigny

Artillery & Musket vs Longbow -> Castillon
Was Castillon position prepared by the French? Sure, but so was Agincourt...

All that by the Mid XVth century...

Louis,

[Beirut]

At Agincourt the French actually tried the sensible approach of first clearing the damned archers off the flanks with fast strike troops (ie. cavalry). That failed, but AFAIK mainly because the cavalry wings were badly understrenght from what they were supposed to be (feudal military aristocracy not being famous for strict adherence to discipline or orders, quite a few knights and men-at-arms who were supposed to participate failed to do so).

Something I just read was that when King Henry ordered his army closer to the French, to goad them into attacking, the French cavalry did not charge the archers in the vulnerable stage of removing their sharpened stakes from the ground, carrying them forward, and putting them back in the ground. Total negligence on the part of the French. They waited until the stakes where all planted and the archers in formation. A fatal error.


The English longbows couldn't really do much real damage against such well-protected troops, many of whom also carried shields, but the constant rain of wood and metal they subjected them to would certainly have been very unnerving (made no less so by the way a random arrow would every now and then find someone's eyeslit or a weak spot in armour if only by raw statistical probability).


Couldn't the Bodkin points on the longbow arrows penetrate French armour? Also, just as a point of interest, I read the English killed a great many French soldier with head shots.

[ajaxfetish]

As I understand it, the arrows (w/ iron heads) would only penetrate steel armor if they hit it at a vulnerable point such as the joints between pieces. The headshots I imagine would be hitting unfortunate soldiers who raised their visors for a better view, since the visor hampered both visibility and breathing, but also protected a fairly vital part of the body. As Watchman said, the effect of the barrage should have had a serious detrimental effect on French morale, and combined w/ the incredibly muddy ground, the suction of said mud against plate surfaces, and crowd dynamics as the French body got squeezed into a steadily narrowing funnel, led to the debacle that followed.

Ajax

[Tempiic]

English longbows are so overrated if not overhyped. ;)


Still I find myself quite agreeing with ajaxfetish' and Watchman's points.

[Kalle]

The rise of muscets over (long)bows and crossbow have more to do with
1) Economy (muscets great potential for protoindustrial manufacturing, correct resources easier to come across and so on)
2) Centralisation of power (the kings or whoever ruled wrestled power from their feudal lords more and more and needed standing armies of bigger and bigger size requiring "mass"production of weapons)
3) and possibly a belief in some sort of progress and science, (if you dont start use and produce this new weapon maybe in the future you would be totally obsolete)

Trainingtime (a thing that can be questioned, put anyone in front of a bow or a muscet who did not see them before and you will be able to use the bow before the muscet) and slight diffrences in accuracy and or reloadtime are secondary issues in this thing. If it was a question of reloadtime and accuracy the bow would never have been replaced.

Kalle

[Temujin]

The English introduced a major change to the usual weapons mix of medieval armies
They really didn't. The English had great archers, so they focused on them to reinforce success. But English longbowmen did not popularize archery tactics in the rest of Europe. Sure, the french made a half-assed attempt to copy them with their own archer corps, but they didn't have the troops to pull it off, and never really abandoned their cavalry-focused tactics.
Compare the influence of English archery to that of Swiss pike-formations in the late medieval/renaissance; now there's a major change.


To me there can be little doubt that a unit of Longbowmen would decimate any arquebus/musket opponent.
Any? No matter the other qualities of the soldiers involved? I think not. Longbowmen could be as green, cowardly, de-motivated and skittish as any other soldiers, and they demonstrated this in numerous battles.

Wargamers have an unfortunate tendency to focus too much on the "hard", constant factors, such as equipment, in their discussions, I think. Contemporary commentators rarely mention equipment details. When speaking of the English, they don't use the term "Longbowmen", they call them "Archers", because that's how they saw them; as common archers of uncommon proficiency. That the English variety of archers should be something entirely different (a different "troop-type") is a wargaming convention, invented by games designers that are too eager to put fighting men in neat little boxes to make representing them in their games easier. In reality, the draw-weight of your bow and the shape of your arrowheads were completely insignificant details compared to morale, motivation, training-levels, fatigue, discipline, leadership, tactics and circumstance.

[Watchman]

I wouldn't vouch for that last part. A weapon system that just plain cannot fulfill an important battlefield function - and the short hunting bow fairly commonly used did not against armoured enemies - is not going to play a very prominent role period, not in the least because there's little point in expending resources on it. The feudal levy invariably turned up a number of fellows handy with a bow or sling (commonly used by shepherds and the like to chase off wild animals, and by children to keep birds from dining too brashly in the fields), and those skills were naturally put to use (I've read slings were particularly useful in sieges, being able to seriously injure even through helmets which were obviously what you mostly saw of the defenders behind the crenellations); but their effectiveness on the battlefield against decently equipped soldiery, or rather lack thereof, did not warrant any further effort on the topic.

The crossbow, longbow and in the East the composite bow were however another story, and promising enough that serious soldiers put an effort into refining them and the higher-ups became interested in exterting the effort and resources to have them available.


Something I just read was that when King Henry ordered his army closer to the French, to goad them into attacking, the French cavalry did not charge the archers in the vulnerable stage of removing their sharpened stakes from the ground, carrying them forward, and putting them back in the ground. Total negligence on the part of the French. They waited until the stakes where all planted and the archers in formation. A fatal error....which smacks of discipline issues. If half the people supposed to take part in the cavalry action hadn't even turned up to the banners the formations would hardly have yet been in the state to mount an effective attack, all the more so as many of those present no doubt voiced (sensible) doubts about the point of sallying forth with so comparatively few men. By the time these things had been sorted out and the troops organized and formed up the opportunity to move against the English in the middle of redeployement would have been long gone.

'Course, had the English seen the French begin to move they'd no doubt stopped on their tracks and promptly re-planted their stakes - probably not too time-consuming a process given the softness of the wet ground - and gone to work with their bows. Cavalry advancing in formation have to maintain a comparatively slow pace to keep the ranks intact and to avoid tiring the horses and the soft ground would have slowed them down even further, so catching the English "pants down" may well have been impossible to begin with anyway.


Couldn't the Bodkin points on the longbow arrows penetrate French armour? Also, just as a point of interest, I read the English killed a great many French soldier with head shots.Not with any degree of reliability except at point-blank range. Even humble mail can stop arrows from the much more powerful composite bows at longer ranges, and do not for a moment think the people using those bows did not have access to all conceivable types of specialized arrowheads the English had ever dreamt of and then some. By Agincourt the harness of a fully equipped man-at-arms was up to the standards of Eastern cataphracts - and those fellows had been conceived to ride through enemy missile fire with impunity and hack them apart in close combat (well, quite a few of the eastern heavies carried bows too and could thus simply out-live most archers in a firefight, but that's a bit beside the point) in parts of the world absolutely crawling with good recurve composite bows and people skilled at using them.

I'll reiterate this: if you assumed the English archers could cut fully equipped men-at-arms down at range, then how would you explain the fact the French heavies were pretty much always able to reach their English counterparts in a condition where the latter still had to work for their money to drive them away ?

The longbow wasn't a battle-winning weapon. It merely made it possible for the English to win with fewer of the expensive men-at-arms and other heavy close-combat troops, and as a bonus was - like any missile weapon with decent range - quite useful in sieges.

Ditto for the crossbow, although given that at their prime the Italian urban armies that could take on any and all comers were mostly crossbowmen screened by a thin crust of armoured militia spearmen and a smattering of often relatively light cavalry, actually even better at it when used correctly.

I presume the composite bow, especially when employed from horseback, did win battles pretty much by itself, but AFAIK in practice that only happened in battles between armies of light cavalry (ie. nomads) and even then shock action was normally used to finish things - nevermind now the invariable presence of armoured elite cavalry primarily detailed for shock duties.

Conversely the pike, at least used in the aggressive and mobile fashion the Swiss made popular (the static Scottish schiltroms having proven to be arrow-fodder), was a "decisive" weapon - while in practice pike armies always included missile troops and cavalry, in principle they would have been able to win battles pretty much solely with their long pointy sticks.
But then again, when you combine them with maneuver pikes are shock weapons. That's one thing the Hellenics apparently never got right back in the day.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

'Course, had the English seen the French begin to move they'd no doubt stopped on their tracks and promptly re-planted their stakes - probably not too time-consuming a process given the softness of the wet ground - and gone to work with their bows. Cavalry advancing in formation have to maintain a comparatively slow pace to keep the ranks intact and to avoid tiring the horses and the soft ground would have slowed them down even further, so catching the English "pants down" may well have been impossible to begin with anyway.


Catching the English pants down has been done in Patay, they had no time to hide behind stakes and were badly defeated. Hardly an impossible scenario.

Louis,

[Watchman]

Well, we're talking the face-off at Agincourt here. And the French having organisational issues.

[ProudNerd]

I really hope guns are of use in MTW thy look and sound really cool expect for the noticble bug where the rear line only starts reloading after the front has fired make their rate of fire even slower than it has to be.

In MTW I though the same they looked and sounded cool but they were just so painfully useless. They could fire from a few feet away and get about three kills, they fired far too slowly t skirmish and they were truly awful in melee which was compounded by the fact they had to be so close to shoot.

[ProudNerd]

I think I have answered this in my earlier posts. The practise of archery in England was a long and difficult process with years of training needed to become a good bowman. Although the bow was still used extensively in the North the weapon had long become obsolete in the south. The gun was cheaper, easiier to use and inventually stocked in bigger numbers and the common of law of archery as a pass time that nearly every young male took part in was gradually ingnored and fell into decline

Not only that, longbows took a long time to make. The wood had to be dried for something like four years and a selfbow style longbow took something like 20 hours to craft and then there was the need for a pool of very experienced archers. The loss of longbow men on war would have been crippling blow that would have take years to recover from. I think it was at patay where a great number of them were massacred. That probably when a long way in England losing that war.

[Censor]

I really hope guns are of use in MTW thy look and sound really cool expect for the noticble bug where the rear line only starts reloading after the front has fired make their rate of fire even slower than it has to be.

In MTW I though the same they looked and sounded cool but they were just so painfully useless. They could fire from a few feet away and get about three kills, they fired far too slowly t skirmish and they were truly awful in melee which was compounded by the fact they had to be so close to shoot.

I have not played MTW, but the musketeers do seem to be of some use in the Battle of Pavia. During the initial cavalry charge, the french lose about 10 men from each cavalry wing simultaneously, stopping the impetus of the charge significantly or slightly at times. The reloading times are what really diminish the effectiveness of the musketeers. Arquebusiers are even worse, they seem to lack stopping power, I usually get around 10 kills out of each unit in a battle.

[Temujin]

I wouldn't vouch for that last part. A weapon system that just plain cannot fulfill an important battlefield function - and the short hunting bow fairly commonly used did not against armoured enemies - is not going to play a very prominent role period, not in the least because there's little point in expending resources on it. The feudal levy invariably turned up a number of fellows handy with a bow or sling
My point is that there were skilled archers, other than English, in Europe at the time who did manage to be effective without longbows (Charles the Bold's Savoyards, for example). Conversely, there were plenty of examples of longbow-armed troops (English or otherwise) being an embarrasment on the field.

I don't see much evidence that longbows outright changed the battlefield role of the soldiers equipped with them. They still fought as massed archers, like Savoyard and Byzantine archers equipped with other types of bow. Indeed, the quality of the longbows is just another factor in efficiency, and a smaller one than the quality of the soldier, I would say.

Professional troops had better equipment, sure, but passing that equipment on to poor quality levies would not have changed their quality significantly, or changed their role in battle.

[Basilios II Voulgaroktonos]

My point is that there were skilled archers, other than English, in Europe at the time who did manage to be effective without longbows.
If we reached the point of doughting about the efficiency of the longbow and the quality of the english longbowmen,WHERE IS THIS WORLD GOING?come on guys the english longbowmen where the best medieval archers and in every battle that the english did they where the key to win.we can'tcompare them to other common archers of the time.maybe only the byzantine archers could in some way be compared to them but by the time the empire lost its strengh also lost and the good archers too!!!

[Tempiic]

Any mentioning of English Longbows used in battle that I have encountered have been against the French, Irish and Scotts. I cannot recall any accounts of English Longbows (or even archers) during the Crusades, while I see no reason to think they were simply not present. Such accounts might be present, as I am not a professional historical researcher myself, but their fame has only been against the Scotts and French, which werent well known for their archery.

No I think I will rather go for archers in the middle east of Arab, Iranian, Armenian, Greek or Turkish origin, regardless whether they fought for Islam or the Byzantines, both mounted as well as on foot.

[CBR]

Since "longbow" is a term from the 16th century that might be the explanation why you "cannot recall any accounts of English Longbows (or even archers) during the Crusades" ~;)

King Richard I had both archers and crossbows with him in his crusade. And the English mostly fought against Scots and French anyway.


CBR

[Tempiic]

I did not say he did not had english archers with him, it is just that I did not ready any accounts of special mentions of their capabilities unlike english archers against the French or Scotts. ;)

[LadyAnn]

What she meant may be that facing the armies who are used to fight with bows, the english archers were never mentioned as the determining factor.

Another way to phrase it: Agincourt is the failure of the French Men-At-Arms and Heavy Cavalry to win over predominently Archers English army, not the triumph of the archers over heavy infantry and cavalry. I am not saying that heavy infantry should automatically win over archers, pointing out Agincourt as the counter example. I would give another example: Saladin army won over well armored Cruisaders.

But to give English archers, the Longbowmen, a stat (and allow upgrades) such that they could fight at par with Men-at-Arms and win in melee is a travesty.

eh, she did reply faster than I :P

[CBR]

I did not say he did not had english archers with him, it is just that I did not ready any accounts of special mentions of their capabilities unlike english archers against the French or Scotts. ;)
What type of capabilities of bows in battles against Scots or French are you thinking about?


CBR

[Tempiic]

I am not sure what you mean with your question CBR

[LadyAnn]

How about this: Scotts vs. English, it was mentioned that Scotts got decimated by arrows, as they stood the ground on a small hill the whole day. French vs. English: the archers could kill the Men-at-Arms "with their hammer" as the latter are tangled in a mass. But during the crusades, the Western bows were never mentioned as superior or a decisive actor in any victory.

Oh, and I forgot, it was not mentioned that the French were killed by arrows from a far (the so called longbow range superiority). The French were massacred during Agincourt battle when they were very close to the English line, piled up, ready to be shot or hammered.

[CBR]

Ah well first of all numbers archers and crossbows means a lot for how much effect they have and the type of opponent and tactics used. Its my impression that crossbows were used more than bows during the crusades: in one case just seeing the crossbowmen starting to load made an Arab force retreat. AFAIK crossbows and archers were quite good against horsearchers. Decisive? Forcing an enemy to keep away and shoot at far range is not gonna break an enemy but it certainly is nice.

So one has to think about the differences in the battles, when crusader style battles involved one side who consisted mainly of light cavalry and then versus a stationary force of Scot infantry. Plus you can find HYW battles where not much positive is mentioned about the archers so it varies from battle to battle.


CBR

[LadyAnn]

My point was that ... longbows are overhyped, overrated :) Oops, that's already said somewhere :0)

Annie

[CBR]

Annie I certainly dont believe in the hype either.


CBR

[LadyAnn]

Thus my comment was not directing to you, CBR :)

[CBR]

~:grouphug: with you and Tempiic! ~D


CBR

[antiwup]

longbowmen TOOK FOREVER TO TRAIN WHILE MUSKETS CAN BE GIVEN TO A BUNCH OF IDIOTS TAUGHT HOW TO LOAD AND FIRE IN MINUTES AND ARE COMBAT READY. HOWEVVER MANY DECADES THE ENGLISH WHERE UNABLE TO WITHSTAND THE FURY OF THE HIGHLAND CHARGE UNTILL THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLUG BAYONET BOTH CANT STAND IN A HAND TO HAND FIGHT.

[Kalle]

longbowmen TOOK FOREVER TO TRAIN WHILE MUSKETS CAN BE GIVEN TO A BUNCH OF IDIOTS TAUGHT HOW TO LOAD AND FIRE IN MINUTES AND ARE COMBAT READY.

Statements such as these are made everywhere this topic is discussed and that is not a rare discussion either at this forum or at .com or wherever.

I would like you to point me to a firsthand source that says it take for ever to learn to shoot a bow and another that states that musqeteers become an effective battleweapon as soon as you hand the muskets out.

Thank you in advance.

Kalle

[Comrade Alexeo]

I'll quietly interject here, as I've used both a bow and a musket before...

Any idiot can figure out how to work a bow - you pull the string back and then let go of it!

Anyone who's ever tried this also knows that this proves almost impossible to do well when you put it to the test. You drop the arrow, it bounces off the string, you can't pull the string back because it requires too much pull, your arrow goes flying forty feet directly to your left or plops 6 inches in front of you...

If you've ever managed to pull off a bullseye, or at least get your arrow to fly in a vaguely straight manner with enough distance on it that you actually have to sorta look for it, then here's a balloon for you

:balloon2:

None of you are going to get my balloon, though, because none of you have done it or will ever do it. Ever. I don't care what you say, because it's bull.

And that's with modern bows, too, not a longbow. That's like comparing a water pistol to a bazooka.

Longbowmen had to train for years to really have any actual skill with their weapons. They started as kids with little bows shooting at clumps of dirt, and as they grew up they started using the Big Daddy bows. Luckily for the English, for the most part skill was not required - sending big levies of peons against gradually diminishing groups of irreplacable French knights was good enough. So long as you got the swarm of arrows in the general vicinity of the enemy, well, that was good enough. That's not to say that some longbowmen were likely the match of any Eastern archer in terms of skill - I've heard that longbowmen in some sieges actually shot through the arrow slits of castle towers to hit the defensers - but the majority of them surely were not.

Longbowmen weren't so much uber-fighters as they were cost-effective ones; you could have bunches of the guys any time you needed them ready to deal some damage. But the time it takes to train people how to use them in a semi-organized fashion, and the time needed to create a good longbow - years in both cases - meant that something else would be still more preferable.

Enter crossbows. Once again, any idiot can figure this out - pull the trigger, place the bolt and wind it up, then pull the trigger - only this time there's less margin for error because a crossbow doesn't require as much arm strength. It's also easier to aim by its very nature, and so can be very accurate even in the hands of your typical villager.

So, why arquebuses and muskets? I mean, they have these complicated loading sequences with 40 zillion steps, they have a tendency to misfire or even explode, and they're wildly inaccurate?

BANG!

That's why. Never, ever, ever underestimate the psychological effect of a bunch of very loud objects pointed at you. Especially one's that have nice big flashes of flame and spew smoke. Especially in a very religious age.

There's a common misconception that a musket takes a long time to load, and they certainly do by the standards of, say, an M-16, and that the process is complicated, and it certainly is by the standards of, say, an AK-47. But you have to ignore these bits.

In just two drill sessions with my buddies who do Civil War (I'm an extra body :2thumbsup: ), in what amounts to a total of, oh, I dunno, 8 hours of drilling, I could already load a musket in my sleep. And yes, a percussion musket is vastly simpler than earlier flintlocks and matchlocks... so they take, oh, 12 hours. And, sure, they take a while to load, but once you get into the motions, its not so arduous; the wasted time generally comes from your officer not having given the command yet.

You have to get out of the mindset that casualties=morale loss. That's true in both the TW world and the real world, but it's vastly more true in the TW games, because, no matter how good the CA guys are (and good they are, I assure you), they can't fully replicate the mindset of a soldier, much less thousands of them. They have to approximate it to create a funner, more obvious sequence of events, because otherwise battles would just be mindless slogs.

Imagine it...

You're marching towards the enemy line with 50 of your buddies. Officers are shouting out orders, men are psyching themselves up for the battle, metal is clanking and feet are pounding, music is blaring in the background...

FWIT!

GAH!

Suddenly, 17 comrades collapse after being hit by the enemy arrows. But you're for the most part unaware. You can't see them, and you can just barely hear their muffled screams over everything else, and it's not enough to shake you from your battle rush as you move towards the enemy line...

BANG!

The enemy! Where the bloody hell is the enemy? They've disappeared into a cloud of smoke - smoke that smells like sulfur, like the very fires of Hell! Your ears are ringing from the deafening noise. You've gone from hearing everything to hearing nothing in an instant. In a literal flash, you've just lost your two primary senses, your awareness of the battle. Now what?


Gar, where was I? Hmm... the point I'm trying to make is this:

None of these weapons is ideal, either in M2TW or in the real world. Indeed, armies were constantly experimenting with the correct proportion of pikemen to crossbowmen to handgunners during this period; they knew that each had its own place, but they just weren't sure who took precedence.

The same applies to M2TW. Traditional archers and crossbowmen (if they can fire flaming arrows) are probably the best castle-defenders, if only because they can set things on fire. But once gunpowder rolls around, you'll find your castles growing more and more ineffective, so now you might want to fight the enemy in the field.

There's various combinations here:

1 general
10 pike units
3 longbow/archer units
3 gunner units
3 crossbowmen units

This combo gives you everything, but perhaps not enough of anything. You can engage well at any range, and have good protection thanks to your pikemen, but if the enemy has more ranged units your ranged units might not be able to kill enough of the enemy before they rip your pikemen to shreds...

Hmmm, let's try...

1 general
2 heavy cavalry units
8 pikemen units
3 longbow/archer units
3 gunner units
3 crossbowmen units

Now you have cavalry to protect from other cavalry and to run down enemy ranged units... or, perhaps, get blasted into oblivion since there's not enough of them...

Gar, one moment...

1 general
4 heavy cavalry units
6 pikemen units
3 longbow/archer units
3 gunner units
3 crossbowmen units

Aha! Now you can run down and crush the enemy ranged units! But wait - the enemy artillery is destroying your pikemen, and now they won't be able to stand up to the enemy infantry!

1 general
2 artillery units
4 heavy cavalry units
4 pikemen units
3 longbow/archer units
3 gunner units
3 crossbowmen units

Bye-bye enemy artillery! And goodbye victory, since now your army has become so diluted that it can't do anything except smile and wave at death!

Maybe if you fiddled around with your ranged units...?



Oh bah... this is ridiculous. If you figure it out, could you do me a favor?

Call Machiavelli. I'm sure he'd love to see what you think...



:laugh4:

[Kalle]

Any idiot can figure out how to work a bow - you pull the string back and then let go of it!


Yes.


Anyone who's ever tried this also knows that this proves almost impossible to do well when you put it to the test. You drop the arrow, it bounces off the string, you can't pull the string back because it requires too much pull, your arrow goes flying forty feet directly to your left or plops 6 inches in front of you...


Is there something wrong with your hands?? Sorry but this make no sence at all. Even my sisters kids can shoot in the correct direction. Not even in my very first attempt as a young toddler did I manage to shoot 40 feet directly to my left.

Hitting bullseye at a long range is another matter but that is most certanly true with firearms as well, modern or historical. Dont believe me well watch the olympics next time it comes up.

If a bow is so hard to handle one can also ask oneself how it has been so widely used and popular from ancient times and onwards. Makes no sence at all...


None of you are going to get my balloon, though, because none of you have done it or will ever do it. Ever. I don't care what you say, because it's bull.

And that's with modern bows, too, not a longbow. That's like comparing a water pistol to a bazooka.


Maybe. but for all you and I know there could be lots of people doin archery here. As a matter of fact I believe the possibilities for that is high. Anyways hitting bullseye at long range wasnt the primary use of the bow even back in the good old days, more on this further down.


Longbowmen had to train for years to really have any actual skill with their weapons.

To have any real skill with a missile weapon you need to practise regularaly, this goes for firearms aswell. Basically its true for whatever activity you are doing.


In just two drill sessions with my buddies who do Civil War (I'm an extra body ), in what amounts to a total of, oh, I dunno, 8 hours of drilling, I could already load a musket in my sleep. And yes, a percussion musket is vastly simpler than earlier flintlocks and matchlocks... so they take, oh, 12 hours. And, sure, they take a while to load, but once you get into the motions, its not so arduous; the wasted time generally comes from your officer not having given the command yet.


In just one drillsession of about 5 minutes I know how to load a bow :yes:
About officers not giving commands in time, are you talking about your officer in your "game" or about all officers throughout history?? Or are you really trying to claim that loading a muscet is done faster then loading a bow had it not been for the bad officers for muscetregiments that all forgot to issue orders??


You have to get out of the mindset that casualties=morale loss. That's true in both the TW world and the real world, but it's vastly more true in the TW games, because, no matter how good the CA guys are (and good they are, I assure you), they can't fully replicate the mindset of a soldier, much less thousands of them. They have to approximate it to create a funner, more obvious sequence of events, because otherwise battles would just be mindless slogs.


Yes, Im sure we all know this is a game. However Im pretty sure they do just as good as You when it comes to replicating the mindset of a soldier.


So long as you got the swarm of arrows in the general vicinity of the enemy, well, that was good enough.

Im nitpicky of course but the general vicinity wouldnt win you any battle. However this is true. Bullseye was not what was aimed for. You aimed to cover a certain area (an area with enemy in it or in the case of a cavalryrush an area where you estimate the cav will be when the arrows come zooming in) with a dense cloud of arrows thus some arrows were bound to hit target.


Longbowmen weren't so much uber-fighters as they were cost-effective ones; you could have bunches of the guys any time you needed them ready to deal some damage. But the time it takes to train people how to use them in a semi-organized fashion, and the time needed to create a good longbow - years in both cases - meant that something else would be still more preferable.


You are contradicting yourself. First you say you can a have a bunch of guys ready always then you say it takes a lifetime to be ready to use a bow or else you would shoot 40 feet to your left, drop the arrow or whatever.

You are on to something when you start to talk about the making of the bow though. (see my earlier post about economics).


Suddenly, 17 comrades collapse after being hit by the enemy arrows. But you're for the most part unaware. You can't see them, and you can just barely hear their muffled screams over everything else, and it's not enough to shake you from your battle rush as you move towards the enemy line...


So when hit by an arrow screams are muffled?? A storm of arrows create a distinct sound and I bet soldiers didnt like that sound and they didnt like seeing their comrades fall either and unless hit in the mouth I bet many would scream their heart out.


BANG!

The enemy! Where the bloody hell is the enemy? They've disappeared into a cloud of smoke - smoke that smells like sulfur, like the very fires of Hell! Your ears are ringing from the deafening noise. You've gone from hearing everything to hearing nothing in an instant. In a literal flash, you've just lost your two primary senses, your awareness of the battle. Now what?


Both these things you describe would penelise the shooter more then the reciever of the shot. The big bang is biggest and loudest for those that fire the weapon (in fact the bang is very close to the shooters ear, that is why, when possible, we use protection for our ears when we shoot today).

The smoke makes the enemy dissapear for both sides but it is the shooter that is in the midst of this smelly thing...

Anyways now im off to breakfast.

Kalle

[cannon_fodder]

I'll put in my 2 cents again, in a slightly different way.

If longbows were so effective during actual combat, they would've seen widespread use for a much longer time than they did, despite the strategic issues. If arquebuses were so ineffective during combat, they would have taken centuries longer to catch on, even when the strategic benefits are taken into account.

I don't know if you can even say that arquebuses do have many strategic benefits. Of course they're somewhat easier to use up to the maximum effectiveness of the weapon, but there are other factors. I've read that the arquebuse's ammunition (lead balls) was cheaper and faster to construct than the bow's, which isn't surprising. However, one must also consider the gunpowder. I think it's safe to assume that gunpowder, given all the labour at various stages of its creation, was not cheap.

Then there's the maintenance, weight, accidents, deafening, visibility, poisoning, and inability to fire in rain issues. I doubt it would've taken as long as some say to train a longbowman to fire at roundabout the correct X and Y angles to hit area an enemy unit occupies. And when you consider that most men would be several ranks back and not have a good view of the enemy, I really doubt that the ability to hit a small target at long range would count for much.

What I'm getting at is that arquebuses carry with them many strategic and several tactical issues. If bows were so much greater in combat, they would not have been replaced. That's why I argue that arquebuses were far more devastating weapons than bows. With bows, you can slow down an enemy unit, break apart formations, and perhaps cause minor injuries to their troops. But a bow couldn't penetrate standard armour since chain mail was in use, and it doesn't have a chance in hell of penetrating plate. Read that study I posted in a link a while back.

The arquebus, on the other hand, is an effective killing weapon. It was powerful enough to kill someone wearing plate, and anyone so heavily armoured to actually survive a hit would be completely useless in combat.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'll put in my 2 cents again, in a slightly different way.

If longbows were so effective during actual combat, they would've seen widespread use for a much longer time than they did, despite the strategic issues. If arquebuses were so ineffective during combat, they would have taken centuries longer to catch on, even when the strategic benefits are taken into account.

I don't know if you can even say that arquebuses do have many strategic benefits. Of course they're somewhat easier to use up to the maximum effectiveness of the weapon, but there are other factors. I've read that the arquebuse's ammunition (lead balls) was cheaper and faster to construct than the bow's, which isn't surprising. However, one must also consider the gunpowder. I think it's safe to assume that gunpowder, given all the labour at various stages of its creation, was not cheap.

Then there's the maintenance, weight, accidents, deafening, visibility, poisoning, and inability to fire in rain issues. I doubt it would've taken as long as some say to train a longbowman to fire at roundabout the correct X and Y angles to hit area an enemy unit occupies. And when you consider that most men would be several ranks back and not have a good view of the enemy, I really doubt that the ability to hit a small target at long range would count for much.

What I'm getting at is that arquebuses carry with them many strategic and several tactical issues. If bows were so much greater in combat, they would not have been replaced. That's why I argue that arquebuses were far more devastating weapons than bows. With bows, you can slow down an enemy unit, break apart formations, and perhaps cause minor injuries to their troops. But a bow couldn't penetrate standard armour since chain mail was in use, and it doesn't have a chance in hell of penetrating plate. Read that study I posted in a link a while back.

The arquebus, on the other hand, is an effective killing weapon. It was powerful enough to kill someone wearing plate, and anyone so heavily armoured to actually survive a hit would be completely useless in combat.


The English armies took time to develop the weapon en masse for campaigns aganist the scots and French, other nations quite simply were prepared to change their tactics in battle as most didn't like the idea of one, giving so much sway to a common soldier in unit ratio (usually 3/4 archers) and also not riding into battle and having to dismount. Most saw it as dis-honourable and were not particularly keen in fighting side by side and on foot with their lower orders.

The English had learnt the power of dismounting the entire army in a prepared position after the victory of the Exiles at Dupplin Muir. The power of defensive formations with caltrops and trench, with archers on the flanks with a solid dense mass of Men at arms usually 4-6 deep was the key to them winning victory after victory. The French and Scots nobles often dismounted to fight usch as at Poitiers and Nevilles Cross but by dismounting their knights they took their ability at shock action in a charge. This left them even more prone to exhaustion and pickings for the fresh dismounted men at arms and target practise for the archers

[AussieGiant]

Please note, there is a distinct difference between the two arguements that are happening in this thread. One is the comparision between Muskets and Bows and the other is the "just how affective was the Long Bow, or for that matter any heavy bow in the medieval period".

Specifically regarding the comparision between Muskets and Bows then this thread is starting to feel a little over analysed.

Everyone can study history and make up their own mind.

IMO, on a macro scale, there was a period (a very long one) in which "Bows" of all types and variations were the standard ranged combat weapon.

With the discovery of gunpowder guns became an option.

As a few people have stated here, it is clearly not the case that early gunpowder weapons were any more effective than traditional heavy bows. Muskets in fact were inferior to "Heavy Bows" at all ranges other than "point blank".

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but statistical evidence proves it.

Heavy Bows were more accurate, had long effective range and a great rate of fire than any hand held gun powder weapon up until the mid 1800's.

IMO, given these characteristic in favour of the Heavy Bow, the increase use of gunpowder weapons in the first 200 years was primarily due to its ease of production and the reduced training and physcial requirements need to become proficient with it in comparison to the bow. Please don't discount these two characteristics on a strategic level. That fact that a weapon with inferior ballistic characteristics could still replace a Heavy bow is already a huge advantage for the pro-musket lobby :beam:

As for just how effective Bows were in the 4000 years they were used. Any weapon that can be that relevant for that long certainly has some effectiveness in the battle field.

It's individual effectiveness can be argued until the cows come home...I think we are nearly there actually :2thumbsup:

I'm sure the heavy bows was responsible for winning many battles. Equally they may have been ineffective on many occasions also. As for whether it is over hyped or not, well that always depends on the opinion of each person. For me it is a "must have" weapon. If I had a selection of any Heavy bow unit in my army, then Long Bowman would be my preference.

At the very least you have a massive suppression fire weapon against even the heaviest armour opposition. And in most cases you will have a decisive advantage over your opponent if they do not have Heavy Bow units.

So there is another 3 or 4 cents to the whole thread :beam:

[cannon_fodder]

I think your "massive suppression fire weapon" is an excellent description of bows. You can slow people down, but you cannot kill them. It seems like many people here are imagining a single unit of arquebusiers fighting a single unit of bowmen. Think of an entire army, which most likely consists mainly of shock infantry.

The bow in itself will not destroy the other army. On the other hand, the arquebus in itself can. As long as there's sufficient protection for the arquebusiers, they can completely grind down the enemy.

[Temujin]

If I had a selection of any Heavy bow unit in my army, then Long Bowman would be my preference.

Fine. You can have Edmund of Ruthyn's treasonous Welshmen that cost the Lancastrians the battle at Northampton in 1460, and I'll take Sultan Mehmed's Jannisaries that killed so many Moldavians at Razboieni (1476) that it was later named Valea Alba (white valley, from the bones). Let's fight:smash: :laugh4:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Fine. You can have Edmund of Ruthyn's treasonous Welshmen that cost the Lancastrians the battle at Northampton in 1460, and I'll take Sultan Mehmed's Jannisaries that killed so many Moldavians at Razboieni (1476) that it was later named Valea Alba (white valley, from the bones). Let's fight:smash: :laugh4:


Those examples of treachery are few and far between. You are talking about the war of the roses here and it wasn't just welsh bowmen who helped the enemy into the entrenched camp.

[Basilios II Voulgaroktonos]

But during the crusades, the Western bows were never mentioned as superior or a decisive actor in any victory.
Oh, and I forgot, it was not mentioned that the French were killed by arrows from a far (the so called longbow range superiority). The French were massacred during Agincourt battle when they were very close to the English line, piled up, ready to be shot or hammered.


Come on plz.in the crusades when the enemies were 10vs1 or even more some times the western armies didnt have the ability of deploing in the field many archers as the enemies were mostly on horses where the bows wont do nothing,and if they did not have anough men to defend their position with foot soldiers(men at arms and...)with the enemy army many times larger and much more mobile,they wouldnt have any chance.thats why there werent many archers.

And in the battle of Agincourt come on...you want the longbow to hit from... 5Km?its normal taht even the longbow has a range and when the enemies were in that range i think it was devastating!!!

[Temujin]

Those examples of treachery are few and far between.
I'm sure Buckingham would have been very comforted by that fact: "but really, Sir, they almost never do this" :)

Could we at least agree that the results wouldn't have been different had the welshmen been armed differently? And that it is unlikely that the Jannisaries at Valea Alba would have made even more of a mess of the Moldavians, had they been sporting longbows instead of composite recurves?

[LadyAnn]

[QUOTE=Basilios II Voulgaroktonos]
And in the battle of Agincourt come on...you want the longbow to hit from... 5Km?/QUOTE]

I never said that. I only said that the kills at Agincourt using arrows were at very short range, the range any other archers could kill. The targets were piled up MAAs. The majority of the kills weren't even by arrows: the archers used their small hammers and knifes they carried as side-arms, as the piled up french MAA wasn't able to even defend themselves.

Anniep

[TosaInu]

I never said that. I only said that the kills at Agincourt using arrows were at very short range, the range any other archers could kill. The targets were piled up MAAs. The majority of the kills weren't even by arrows: the archers used their small hammers and knifes they carried as side-arms, as the piled up french MAA wasn't able to even defend themselves.

Anniep

True. The Agincourt battlesite is also special in that the earth gets very sucky mud when wet. As may be known: it rained a little before.

The French knights/MAA had high quality, shiny, full plate armour. When they dropped in the slippery mud, and didn't get trampled already, they had very large difficulty to get up, because the plates got sucked. The Longbowmen on the contrary lacked such armour, closed in and stabbed the helpless French.