Well is there an eastern ranged unit equal to the mighty longbow , And if so how good are they in melee . I've only ever played as the english but I fancy a bash as a muslim faction.
Printable View
Well is there an eastern ranged unit equal to the mighty longbow , And if so how good are they in melee . I've only ever played as the english but I fancy a bash as a muslim faction.
no unit other than arbalests have longbow range.
eastern factions do have very strong hybrid archers though.
byz have the trebizond archers which is equal melee stat with longbow but without the AP ability.
the eggy have the Nizaris which have insanely high attack and charge but low defense.
the turks have their futuwwas which are similar to nizaris but also have ottoman inf which has AP melee and balanced stats as well as turcoman foot which is king of missile dueling due to high armor and also have high defense.
Historical note: I think some compound bows (which were an eastern speciality) had almost the power of the longbow, don't know about the range. I read somewhere that the reason the longbow was a Welsh and English speciality was in part climatic: the wood for the bow is taken from a specific part of the cross section of the yew that combines half with good energy storage under tension, and half with good storage under compression, thus creating a natural compound bow. For some reason ywe grown in other climates doesn't have quite the same characteristics.
Mildly interesting if true.
Cheers English assassin:
Here I've got some discussions and links about this topic:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=33783&page=2
Here is a long discussion about it, decide yourselve which arguments are better, I had to post it here, because the .com will delete it soon...
Tenzek:
I just got up and I am walking out the door in a few minutes, and I won't have access to a computer for the next day and a half. I don't have time to give more than a brief response to anything, so I'll call time out until Monday after your response to this post.
Really quickly, though:
First, I didn't dismiss the artillery. I said that I do not disagree with you. That would be a clear Roman advantage, and I only went into details on points where I did not agree.
What was the generally accepted range of the compound recurve bow according to the Romans?
While the Romans were professional archers, archery was not considered as important. That was my point with my focus on the training and mindset of the different periods and civilizations. They may have been long-term professionals, but archery was an important part of English society and given a lot more weight in their military strategies. I find it hard to accept that you can argue that Rome's archers were even on par with the archery-heavy civilizations of its own time.
Earlier I tried to make a point that if the cavalry was outclassed badly enough, the Roman auxiliaries wouldn't have the freedom to harass unsupported English archers. If their auxiliaries moved away from their support to attack the English archers, they would be the more vulnerable of the two.
Lastly, a large part of the Roman strength was its nearly inexhaustible supply of troops.
OLEANDER ARDENS
Registered User
Posts: 591
(8/15/04 1:13 pm)
Reply | Edit About archery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Tenzek:
As you only gave the www.stortford-archers.org...dieval.htm link as your only visible source I'll explain to you with it, among others why the composite bow is so much better:
"If we draw a graph of the force F needed to draw the arrow back through a distance x, the area under the graph represents the work done on the system and hence the potential energy stored in the bow. If the graph is a straight line through the origin (i.e. the bow behaves like a spring that obeys Hooke's law), this energy will be equal to Fx/2 (see diagram )."
An easy introduction so that all can follow...
"In fact, the graph of F against x is usually a curve, because of the complicated shape of the bowstave (it is thicker in the middle and thinner at the ends) and the fact that the tension in the bowstring does not always pull in the same direction relative to the ends of the bow. We deal with this by introducing an efficiency term e, and writing the total energy stored as eFx/2. "
All this is perfectly right - for the longbow. The Graph F against x of even a decent composite bow is a different curve. It doesn't curve towards the horizontal line (x) but against the vertical line (F) like in the diagram of Rausing 1967, Fig. 62...
This way the bow stores for the same draw much more energy, risulting in a far bigger Area (integral) Fx; The efficiency E of a fine ancient composite is thus far higher than of the primitive longbow which is limited due to his simple construction and design.
This leads also to ranges far beyond the capacity of the longbow like some Greaco-Scythian shooting ranges show. Shooting competitons are recorded on a Stele from Olbia, found around 1900. On it all citiziens are honored which shoot an arrow further than 282 Orgyien - 520m. Far greater ranges than the best archer with the best longbow could achieve with the lightest arrow...
Let's continue our history and physic discussions:
" Since eFx is twice the elastic potential energy stored in the bow, we need to make the elastic energy stored per unit mass of the bow as large as possible."
Note that the phrase "Since eFx is twice the elastic potential energy stored in the bow" only aplies to the longbow - composite bows did far better - for the reasons explained now..
"This is achieved by choosing a material with a large elastic modulus, a low density and a large value of the maximum allowable strain before permanent deformation occurs. We can say, in effect, that the ideal material is light, tough and springy"
In fact the composite bow has the "ideal" material - by taking the stiffness of the horn and the elasticy of the Sinew, glued on a small core of wood. It combines the best qualities of the best suited materials into a single light functional tool - and is therefor far superior to the heavy longbow which is made only by a material which combines only good qualities into a good compromise... exactly like your source tells us: "Medieval (english) bowyers had no choice of material but wood"..
"HOW POWERFUL WERE THE MEDIEVAL LONGBOWS?
Unfortunately, virtually no bowstaves from the medieval period have survived. So how do we know how powerful the bows would have been? Some evidence can be obtained from the arrows, which have survived. Because the 'archer's paradox' demands that a particular bow needs an arrow of suitable spine (stiffness) then by measuring the properties of a medieval arrow we can estimate the strength of the bow for which it was designed. When these calculations were done, the answers were almost unbelievable. They suggested that the force needed to draw a medieval longbow could have been in the range 110 to 180 pounds (500 to 800 Newtons). Although these figures are astonishing, they have been confirmed by calculations based on the bows found in the wreck of Henry VIII's ship Mary Rose, which sank in 1545. It seems likely that in 1415, when archery was at its peak in England as a technique of warfare, bows would have been no less powerful than in 1545, when archery was already beginning to lose ground to firearms."
Similar drawing wheigts (see George Vernadsky) apply for example to the Mongolian Bows. It is easy to understand why, given the fierce competition between the nomadic tribes for thousends of years mostly using the bow..
Anyway the fine scythian, sarmantian or "hunnic" bows used by professional soldiers, famous in all the world wouldn't have needed even greatly inferior drawing wheigts to outclass a yoeman, as I explained above with the laws of physic and as I will now show with a example:
"The last of these (turkish) bows were made about 200 years ago, but their excellence may be judged by the following. Prior to 1910, the record for the distance an arrow had been fired by an archer was 340 m, achieved with a long-bow of osage-orange wood that required a force of over 700 N [157 pounds force] to draw it. At an archery contest at le Touquet in 1910, Ingo Simon, using an old Turkish composite bow requiring a force of 440 N [99 pounds force] to draw it, fired an arrow 434 m (in a letter to P. Klopsteg, Simon wrote that the force needed to draw his bow was only 290 N [65 pounds force]).*
*From "Invention and Evolution" by M.J. French (1988, Cambridge Univ. Press) (chapter 3.4.2)"
Provided by James Jay
In this case it is a Turkish composite which is better than the "Hunnic" one, but very similar in construction and design, so that it explains the great ranges of the Scyhtian archers.
Thanks to the more efficient "machine", the composite bow the same labour results in far higher power and range...
After having discussed the article, I will respond to your statements:
"The least you could do when you question my sources is to post some sort of statistics or proof for what you're saying. You merely said something that disagreed with me and didn't give any facts to support yourself. I already posted a link that explains the physics a page back"
Thanks for the link which helped me to clear your things up
"I don't believe we have anything but descriptions of bows from the time. Modern composite bows are MUCH more reliable because they're resistant to the weather. All we can do is try to copy descriptions and test the ranges for ourselves, but we're only guessing, and we're only considering ideal conditions, not battle conditions. This makes it really difficult to get solid information. Many reliable sources will estimate different things."
We have more than just descriptions, we have reliable inscriptions as I showed with the Stele of Olbia and have well-preserved bow very similar to the one used by the Romans:
www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm
But I agree that is difficult "to get solid information" - but it is also a question of a good research
"The longbow obviously had a much longer draw ."
Big bad error here
Have you shoot both the longbow - cross chest draw - and scythian - various draws - (Roman) replica bows? You will notice that the Scythian bows have in fact a longer draw, as you can see on many pieces of art - why do you think they made a double-curved bow? Because it looked better?
"Notice in your physics calculation that this is a direct multiplier to the draw force in range calculations."
Only to some extent correct. The F/x curves of the composite bow are far from being linear...
"The Huns shot mainly from horseback, though. Their training was based on moving in to shoot and then fleeing. The longbow was made to shoot from as far away as possible. Sitting on horseback also puts the body in an awkward position compared to standing when firing a bow. This difference in tactics is significant, I believe."
True, but the Huns only used to close in an shoot only if the enemy couldn't retaliate. Good horsearchers are well able to shoot also from foot, which is far easier. Against massed archery chances are very high that they didn't closed in and sismounted - they weren't stupid and knew a good deal about archery...
"What we do know for a fact:
The English bows were made of yew, and this wood had superior properties to the wood that was used by the major powers of Rome's time."
What wood? They one on which horn and sinew were glued? This two elements are the "working" parts of the composite bow, they primaly stored the energy, not the wood...
"Why? They were more expensive to make and less resistant to the elements. While on a sheet of paper the composite bow's physics are almost as impressive as a longbow's, moisture and temperature affected the different materials of a composite bow in different ways."
I love the phrase "on the sheet the composite bow's physics almost are as impressive as a longbow's"
On the battlefields of almost all Euroasia and on all sheets of papar vastly superior to the longbow's would be the correct answer - as demostrated by history and the physic above
"The longbow had an advantage against the composite bow in this because it was made of only one material".
True - his simplicity made him a far worse bow than the complex composite designs used by the Romans, but yes he made him also more resistent in the english rain... finally something we agree
If you wish to debate also the arrows, just ask, I'm always willing to discuss on
Cheers
OA
What a long thread
Edited by: OLEANDER ARDENS at: 8/16/04 11:49 am
zerhoe
Registered User
Posts: 170
(8/15/04 4:44 pm)
Reply Re: About archery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and what a long post, and i read it all too, wau.
Ado 07
Registered User
Posts: 3
(8/15/04 5:30 pm)
Reply Re: Cinna's 4th Point and Byzantine rates of March
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hehe I don't know if you noticed this Tenzek but you've been fighting a losing battle bro...
"Lastly, a large part of the Roman strength was its nearly inexhaustible supply of troops. " I am not going to offer an argument to this because theres a ton of people here that will gladly prove you wrong
To sum up what we have discovered the only definite place where medieval armies would have an advantage would be in Heavy Cavalry and elite heavy infantry (see polearms)... other than that...umm... well read for yourself if you have 20 mins to kill
Tzentri, I know the Byz army was very cavalry based, did they happen to use cavalry on this march or go all on foot?
conon394
Global User
Posts: 132
(8/15/04 6:40 pm)
Reply Re: Cinna's 4th Point and Byzantine rates of March
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenzak
I just don't see how you can argue for some general medieval stance that favored archery and for any substantial improvement in archery technology.
First let me argue a point, the skill of the archer is more important than the bow (actually this goes for slings too). This is why particular people and places at particular times are renowned bowmen; their culture produced people use used the bow all the time. The English yeoman archer with his longbow was certainly more effective then early fire arms or crossbows, but he was replaced with firearms. Why, it’s simply easier to raise and train a competent force with muskets (or crossbows). Given that I see no reason to feel that the Roman compound recurve was substantially less effective than its medevial counterpart, I don’t see why a professional body of Roman Auxiliary archers could not provide effective archery support for a legion. The men using the bows were professionals; it’s what they did every day for 30 years, not just for recreation or hunting.
I made a mistake earlier, I suggested the French failed to take Parisian archers; they were in fact a force of 6000 crossbowman. My point, except of England (the english longbow and it's yomen users) I just don't see anyone encouraging archery outside of the gentry and lower nobility. The Monarchs of Europe were not rousing their peasants to go out and practice the bow. I spent a day looking up the other notable English victories in the 100 years war, at each the French had crossbowman, and they were mercenaries at that. This hardly suggests they valued archery practice (also in each battle they fail to use them to suppress or skirmish with the enemy). In the major English victories, the French allow themselves to be out maneuvered, attacking positions that negated their advantages when they are under no pressure to attack. You seem too feel the Roman don’t value archery, but I say again what Roman general failed to digest the lesson of Crassus. Whether they liked archers or not, every Roman army that attacked Parthian afterward took troops to counter the Parthian advantage in cavalry and archers, by contrast the French medieval generals seemed unable to digest anything.
The web site you posted suggests English arrows crushed the French (at Agincourt). While the first French charge was broken up by English archery, the decisive blow was delved by the English archers acting as light infantry and attacking the bogged down French in the mud. The English yeomen were steady, reliable light to medium infantry with an excellent bow for northern Europe. That’s why the English won, good infantry.
You avoided my point about Hastings; competent infantry could withstand both medieval knights and archers all day.
I don’t doubt that Roman auxiliary cavalry would be out classed, just don’t think the Romans would need them to do much .They would still be available to scout or operate as a dismounted or mounted force to cover the flanks.
Edited by: conon394 at: 8/15/04 6:43 pm
Tzentri
Registered User
Posts: 314
(8/16/04 12:41 am)
Reply Byzantine Army Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, the Byzantine army was cavalry-based, in terms of its decisive punch laying with the cavalry of the army, possible due to the fact that the legions declined in quality and as a decisive arm - thanks to both the Gothic and Persians tempos of warfare.
But no, the march of Basil was made by both infantry and cavalry. Overall, each Byzantine army fielded had a good ratio of infantry with it. There were of course, exceptions - such as when Belisarios landed in Africa with both types, but decided to advance against the Vandals with just the cavalry.
In the Maurikian style, foot outnumbered horse by 3:1. After the Islamic Conquests, the ratio dropped to nearly 1:1 - due to the use of Shadow Warfare.
Shadow Warfare is similar to modern guerilla tactics. Since the Byzantine forces were unable to stop Muslim raids, they would BASICALLY, retreat ahead of its foe, breaking apart in certain detachments that would harrass and lure the enemy into spots that would result in the Roman forces regrouping and defeating the Arab force. When this did not work, the Romans would then break again into sections to harrass the raiders and meet up again in the mountains as the Arabs would be burdened with spoils on its return to the other side of the Taurus Mtn Range - the common border of each side in the 'Byzantine Dark Ages' (8th - 9th c.) .
Cavalry to Infantry during the Middle Period was 2:1. And while the quality of the two arms changed, the ratio stayed pretty much til around the 1300s. After that it varied greatly as to how much of each an Emperor, pretender, or Imperial commander could afford. But even then, the infantry never outnumbered the cavalry in the same way that it was in the Roman day.
I also have a question for the LongBow topic. England & France in Western Europe wasn't the only place that a Roman army would encounter archery. What about the Germans and Hungarians? The Germans also used a longbow style in the 1200s. The Hungarians employed the Asiatic Composite. Im sure the Romans, given the Greek bow, or Parthian/Armenian mercenaries would find dealing with Hungarian archers more 'on par'. From what I see, the units are getting mixed up in a way. The Marian legions would not have access to the Hunnic pattern. Not even the Tiberian legions. The Huns weren't 'in area' until the later 300s, so the bows of the army would have been found among the Greco-Persian forms.
Edited by: Tzentri at: 8/16/04 1:03 am
OLEANDER ARDENS
Registered User
Posts: 593
(8/16/04 10:20 am)
Reply | Edit Re: Byzantine Army Ratios
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hm interesting questions Tzentri:
The Germanic people surly all used a longbow design like the one found in Nydam. Some tribes like the Alemanni had also special tribal shelfbows suited for short ranges - very interesting bows by the way
Langobards and Gothic tribes adopted to a great extent various composite designs and used them also in battles - the "Scythian" archers which "inflicted great loss" in a battle where the Gothic cavalry charged "like a thunderbolt near the mountains"...
Such weapons were also used by the Franks and Alemanns but to some minor extent. The composite bow was limited to the richer stratii of the society, the simple guys used a longbow.
Here an exerp from a nice essay of Simon Coupland (1990)
" In the letter sent by Charlemagne to Abbot Fulrad in 806, however,13 each horseman was commanded to have a bow and several quivers of arrows in addition to the shield and lance, sword and sax.14
The infantry was not required to be so heavily armed: The Capitulary of Aachen, issued in 802-803,15 expected the counts to supply each of their foot-soldiers with a shield and lance as well as a bow with a spare string and twelve arrows.16 The equipment for the royal war carts also included these weapons, doubtless for the driver's protection.17 The Aachen capitulary contained a further provision that no soldier should carry a cudgel (baculum), but rather a bow.18 This presumably related to those free peasants who had no rich lord to equip them."
Note the short amount of arrows for the infantry - usually the "western" style round quivers contained 12-15 arrows. This number of arrows remained surprisingly steady since the Icemen used almost esactly as much arrows and since the archers of the western Hallstatt...
This may point to the "Germanic" use of the longbow simply as a way to break up enemys before charging them...
The cavalry instead might have used a composite bow like the ones seen on some frankish pictorals
It doesn't answer your question, I know but it might help to imagine now a fight between a frankish army from 800-900 against a Roman one, at least it is somewhat more near army of the timeframe you would like to compare with...
BTW thanks for the roses guys, I usually don't use such sharp rethoric, but sometimes it is needed...
Cheers
OA
Edited by: OLEANDER ARDENS at: 8/16/04 11:37 am
Medieval cavalry could easily beat Roman cavalry, crossbows would be a real pain, but if the legions get charged by infantry in their front, cavalry in their flanks, they would be toast.
legionaries
Posts: 1442
(8/16/04 11:12 am)
Reply re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also, about horse archers with composite bows having less range than a longbowman on foot, several sources say the English longbow had a range of 250 yards while the composite bows had a range of at least 300 yards. The mongol composite bow itself had a range of over 350 yards.
Tenzek
Registered User
Posts: 66
(8/17/04 1:59 am)
Reply Re: Re: How would Roman legions perform in the Middle Ages?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This leads also to ranges far beyond the capacity of the longbow like some Greaco-Scythian shooting ranges show. Shooting competitons are recorded on a Stele from Olbia, found around 1900. On it all citiziens are honored which shoot an arrow further than 282 Orgyien - 520m. Far greater ranges than the best archer with the best longbow could achieve with the lightest arrow..."
520m distance shooting for sport has nothing to do with combat. They do not use arrows that are meant to kill men; it also totally ignores my topic on battle conditions vs ideal conditions. Are you trying to say that the bows were effective in combat at 520m?
When I listed the theoretical max range for a longbow, I also pointed out that 240ish was a more reasonable range. This included an arrow meant for combat, not for sports, and shooting at living targets, not painted.
That post you quoted and sort of decided was my only source - that was chosen because it gave a totally different description of a battle that conon explained to me. It just so happened to have the physics calculations for a longbow on it, and it just so happened that they were correct. I did not base my ranges or my draw distance on that (obviously not for the composite bows since they're not even mentioned). I based those on modern information from a couple of groups that re-enact battles and such.
The composite bow can store a lot more energy in a given draw length, and that is why it was chosen for horseback - the bow can be shorter. The longbow is so long for a reason, but I am curious as to how far you're estimating the composite bow was drawn. The force curves are different, but the longbow's unwieldy size was the cost to make up for that.
Let's remember that the English copied the Roman composite bow design. To say that the English lacked the materials to make a composite bow is a little strange. What were they missing exactly? They had plenty of livestock from which they could have taken the other materials required. The thing is, all of the bows had a base of wood, and yew was better than maple for this.
The longbow also held up better in the conditions of the land that the English used. Moisture and heat seriously messed with a composite bow and it's layered materials because it affected them differently. Marching on a military campaign is a different experience than shooting at a target for sport. All that a longbow would need is fresh bow strings and to be kept out of rain and such. Moisture and temperature would slowly have warped the composite bow until it ruined that pretty force curve. Since it was a part of the actual bow, changing the strings wouldn't have helped.
Lastly, while there was much better archery than the *Romans* had at the time (and I fail to see how I should be convinced that the English did not have better military archers), this was still a Roman weakness. They never had a reputation for being an archery power in the world, though archers did have a reputation of being effective against them toward the end of their power.
I am not trying to choose one battle or a line or two of ancient text to base my argument on. Anyone can go find a single example to support any idea they want to argue since we're dependent on a lot of guessing and interpreting of ancient writings for our sources, so it's impossible to really disprove anything that is said except by logic. I prefer to take lots of examples and apply logic as to which ones are useful. If we're going to go in a circle of not accepting eachother's facts, that's fine. I am doing my best to try to keep my statements relevant to the discussion, though.
EDIT (for responses to conon's post)
" The web site you posted suggests English arrows crushed the French (at Agincourt). "
I am not trying to prove this account's credibility. I am only trying to prove my point about how we can find a source to support anything we wish. Both accounts are correct in some ways and exaggerated in others, and I really don't think it's meaningful to the discussion to use single examples for this reason.
"You avoided my point about Hastings; competent infantry could withstand both medieval knights and archers all day."
True. Heavy infantry were very strong against archers and cavalry (when equipped properly) but they still needed to be supported because of their lack of mobility. There is no way I am going to accept any argument that the legionaries were properly equipped to deal with heavy cavalry. They had the armor to withstand attacks, but they were not mobile enough to deal with the archers or equipped to be agressive against the cavalry. If they chose to charge the archers, they would be quite vulnerable to the cavalry. Also, I am still convinced that the archery equipment of the time, especially the crossbow, would have made their heavy armor seem less valuable.
At the point where they lose their supporting units, it seems that they have very little offense that will be effective against enemy archers supported by cavalry. They will not be able to catch either group, and one group can hit at range while the other can hit with speed and from angles that will make the Roman lines clumsy.
The Romans would have to make use of their siege and play defensive to offset their mobility disadvantage, but they have no way to resupply. They might be able to hold off cavalry and archers all day, but they can't really do much about them being there. How long can they keep it up?
We have made a long discussion about how the Romans had archers and cavalry as well, though it did not make up as large a portion of their force. Let's not forget that the medieval army will have its own infantry as well.
One more edit: Searching around for info on the details of the battle of Hastings, you'll notice a couple of things.
1) "all day" is an exaggeration. They lasted from two hours to six hours to "all day" depending on who you ask. Depending on which estimate you want to accept, it really changes who this argues for.
2) The infantry did lose.
However, I still agree with your basic point and I have answered it.
Edited by: Tenzek at: 8/17/04 2:47 am
Edited by: AngryJawaThe5th at: 8/17/04 5:44 am
Caradawc
Registered User
Posts: 5
(8/17/04 4:55 am)
Reply Yet another...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's how I would see a battle between a legion and a Roman army. The Roman cavalry would, first of all, have about a snowball's chance in hell to be of any effect other than to engage the medieval cavalry, which would be most likely heavy horsemen, to prevent the legion from being completely
Tzentri:
Good info OA.
-- A Marian legion facing a Charlemagne-style Frankish/German army would be a good contest. The cavalry would have been styled similar to the Byzantine cataphracts of that time frame(pre-Nikephoros), which in turn would be almost a copy of the Parthian cataphracts that the Marian legions faced while under Crassus - though this time the enemy has good infantry but no masses of light archer cav to support it.
Maximus
-- Good point. There were some pretty bad generals with good armies that have won, like Crassus against Spartacus, and there were average commanders with good armies that have loss, like Quintilius at Teutoburger Wald. But I do agree that while an average Roman army would have relied on the troops discipline and the NCOs to hold everything together, An average Medieval commander wouldnt have simply yelled 'charge!!' ..archery would have been the first thing to check the enemy cohesion level.
jortikka
Registered User
Posts: 17
(8/17/04 10:17 am)
Reply Re: Re: How would Roman legions perform in the Middle Ages?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The English adopted the longbow from Welsh archers they fought. I understand that the longbow actually replaced shorter selfbows and Not the composite bow.
Composite bows had been slowly falling out of use after the romans had left and there was not much contact with other composite bow using people. So they were slowly replaced by more simple shorter selfbows made by locals. The few composite bows found after the Romans had left are most likely trade items from east.
For the Anglo-Saxons bows were mainly hunting weapons until the vikings and normans came.
OLEANDER ARDENS
Registered User
Posts: 597
(8/17/04 4:49 pm)
Reply | Edit How would Roman archers perform in the Middle Ages?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it's nice that you tried to answer at least some of my questions, I will comment on the answers given to them...
I will first start to discuss the physic part and then answer the rest:
"The composite bow can store a lot more energy in a given draw length, and that is why it was chosen for horseback - the bow can be shorter."
Good to see you seemingly have understood the cause of the superiority of the composite bow
"The longbow is so long for a reason," - yes, because only that way he could reduce the gap to the composite bow - "but I am curious as to how far you're estimating the composite bow was drawn."
As you are curious, I'll explain it to you. The lenght of the possible draw itself is:
a) closly related to the size of the human body, in this case his arms
b) the position of the "anchor point"
Case a) remains more or less a constant factor, while b) might differ according to the various traditions.
Thankfully we have a great deal of pictures of scythian, persian, assyrian, egyptian archers. As the Roman recruited their archers mostly from the areas around the Black Sea and the middle east this quys relied on mostly on the scytho-median or scytho-persian tradition. Now we can observe a great deal of different draws, some to the central chest others a good deal behind the right ear...
So nothing speaks against the fact that "Roman" archers had at least an equal draw than english yeomen. But clever Scyhtian archers found also a way to increase the lenght they could pull back the sinew, so that they could outclass guys with traditional composite bows. They made their bows doublecurved, so that the sinew was much closer to the grip of the left hand - the result was in relative terms a longer draw
"The force curves are different, but the longbow's unwieldy size was the cost to make up for that."
I'm sorry to say that but this phrase has no sense. The longbow's unwieldly size did only allow it to have a more or less linear force curve - shorther shelfbows do much worse. Or do you think that there is a magical longbow factor which suddendly get’s added to a F/x curve?
I hope it was only a typo, because if not it doesn't put a good light onto your knowledge in physic
"The longbow also held up better in the conditions of the land that the English used. Moisture and heat seriously messed with a composite bow and it's layered materials because it affected them differently."
The composite bow is more vulnerable to moistore than the lonbow, but far less than people usually think:
"As a matter of fact, fish glue has been proven through millennia to be highly capable of resisting moisture. Moreover, it is durable and lasts longer than modern epoxy resins, which are prone to molecular fatigue. Above all, fish glue is available in all the waters of Siberia where fish is living, among them the greatest of them all, Lake Bajkal."
and
"glue made from ichthyic air bladders is highly moisture-resistant"
About the "Mongolian Bow" from Per Inge Oestmoen...
The archers with composite bows even protected them carefully in bowcases or a gorytos enabeling them to fight in almost all climates like the the wide-spread use of composite bows shows...
"Marching on a military campaign is a different experience than shooting at a target for sport."
Tell that the Scythian warbands who raided in Poland and Egypt, the Magyar archers which fought in in modern day Germany, the Huns which their bows in Northern France, the Mongols which conquered almost all Asia - all with composite bows as primary weapon
"That post you quoted and sort of decided was my only source - that was chosen because it gave a totally different description of a battle that conon explained to me. It just so happened to have the physics calculations for a longbow on it, and it just so happened that they were correct. I did not base my ranges or my draw distance on that (obviously not for the composite bows since they're not even mentioned). I based those on modern information from a couple of groups that re-enact battles and such"
Good, your "modern" informations comes from a "couple of groups"... it is good to see how valid your sources are
I can give a some information by proven authors like Hardy or Pope if you want - at least that's way how one should confirm his sources - and not cite a "couple of groups"...
"520m distance shooting for sport has nothing to do with combat."
Right - it has "nothing" to do with combat, just with the power of the bows which were then used for combat...
"They do not use arrows that are meant to kill men; it also totally ignores my topic on battle conditions vs ideal conditions. Are you trying to say that the bows were effective in combat at 520m? "
No they show just how powerful their bow were which were then used with wararrows against their enemys. I hate to say always it again but a composite bow like the Scyhtian which is far better than the longbow, as proven now a countless times, should also be able to throw a equal wararrow further than a longbow. If you aren't able to accept the lessons of history and consequences of physic just tell us....
"I prefer to take lots of examples and apply logic as to which ones are useful. If we're going to go in a circle of not accepting eachother's facts, that's fine. I am doing my best to try to keep my statements relevant to the discussion, though"
Good method. Now I have given you more examples and did prove your logic in more than one point wrong. I've tried to explain it to you with the lessons of history and phyisc, but if you can not accept or prove the facts I have given wrong than it's fine - tell us that and we can stop.
If it isn't possible to convince other guys with clear-cut arguments than it has no sense to go any further...
"I am doing my best to try to keep my statements relevant to the discussion, though."
So did I
Cheers
OA
Tenzek:
I don't think you're understanding me here. The size of the bow matters. The recurved bow's design gives it the ability to be smaller and hold the same power, but that is why the longbow is so large. It has less power for a given size, but it is much larger. In either case the area under the curve is going to be similar, with the longbow needing to extend how far along one axis that it covers. This is accomplished by making it very large.
As far as your drawings showing people pulling one of those composite horse bows back to their chest, yeah. That's a drawing. Show me a photograph of someone drawing a reasonably accurate replica back that far and I will believe you. [edit: I just thought of another thing to compare. Drawing to your chest on horseback would be different than a standing bowman who is facing 90 degrees from his target. You can't draw the same distance on a horse, in other words.]
Lastly, those bows may have been used for combat and sports, but you just skipped right past the points I made to dispute the validity of that. These longbows didn't shoot 520m, but we're talking about large heavy arrows made to kill people. You're comparing apples to oranges there. Sporting events do not show combat conditions, and they use arrows meant for distance, not damage.
Oleander Ardens:
I don't think you're understanding me here. The size of the bow matters. The recurved bow's design gives it the ability to be smaller and hold the same power, but that is why the longbow is so large. It has less power for a given size, but it is much larger. In either case the area under the curve is going to be similar, with the longbow needing to extend how far along one axis that it covers. This is accomplished by making it very large."
Yes, I'm not understanding you, as you seemingly don't understand nothing at all about the physic of a bow. Perhaps you should study first the article dealing with it posted by yourself before posting something so wrong
I will try the last time to explain it to you:
a) Both bows have a more or less similar draw of the length x, with the Scythian Bow usually a having a longer one, due to the setback handle
So x [S] > or = x [L]
Summa Summarum: The lenght of the longbow allows a long draw, just like the construction of the composite bow allows it to it...
b) The Scyhtian bow transforms also like all decent composite bows a with a varying but always relative higher amount of F per infinitesimal part of x ...
So F(x) [S] > F(x) [L]
Hopefully your understand now that the area under the F/x curve is always larger for a good composite bow with equal drawing weight...
So there is no magical "longer bow" bow factor which get's added afterwards, this factor is already calculated
"Lastly, those bows may have been used for combat and sports, but you just skipped right past the points I made to dispute the validity of that. These longbows didn't shoot 520m, but we're talking about large heavy arrows made to kill people."
So what do you think made the Scyhtians so dreadful? That they made sport competions - or that they killed people with arrows so efficiently that they became the symbol of "the" Archer?
Anyway their bow of equal could shoot a equally heavy wararrow like a Bodkin further, thanks to the superior speed they could give to it...
"You're comparing apples to oranges there. Sporting events do not show combat conditions, and they use arrows meant for distance, not damage."
Of course they used flight arrows, but the power of the potential of their bows is still proven by such long ranges. When they than killed people with arrows - for what they were famous for - they used mostly their trilobate and triangular arrowheads which were adopted in almost all Euroasia...
"As far as your drawings showing people pulling one of those composite horse bows back to their chest, yeah. That's a drawing."
This drawings are not mine. The were painted on Greek Vases a long time ago, in case you don't know
Anyway if you once get a good book about archery in your hands, which also has some photographs of the the Siberian Collection - try to find the hunt of a wild boar were you see a full draw far behind the right ear and a bow with almost horizontal arms...
But you should find enough pieces of art on the web - if you would try to enlighten your knowledge about the composite bow...
"Show me a photograph of someone drawing a reasonably accurate replica back that far and I will believe you."
Good here is a guy which uses a scythian replica bow with the modern anchor point...
www.atarn.org/letters/ltr_may03.htm
BTW: Read his comment about the speed of his arrows shoot with two bows with the same 45lbs
"Sum: My Grozer "old Scythian" is faster than my favorite longbow of the same draw weight, and at least as accurate, or more"
My Sum: What I demostrated your more than once now from theo. point of you, from a historical point of view is also demostrated by an experiment...
Physic is usually not a matter of interpretation, you should have known...
"[edit: I just thought of another thing to compare. Drawing to your chest on horseback would be different than a standing bowman who is facing 90 degrees from his target. You can't draw the same distance on a horse, in other words.]"
A clever horsemen could also ride in circles, like the Sakae did against Alexander, facing the enemy sidewards
Anyway Roman Aux. archers facing Longbowmen would fight as usally dismounted...
"Repeating your points won't give them any more weight, Jortikka"
As it won't help you, Tenzek...
Cheers
OA
Conan:
Coutoir is only about 240 years after Hastings. I still don’t see how archery improved. Yes the English and only the English fielded a robust force of longbowmen. But to the extent that the Romans field either foot or horse archers, they were drawn from cultures that were known for bow prowess, and the troops using them were regulars, serving 30 years stints. I just don’t see the medieval archer being better man for man. The crossbow, given that a legion would have professional artillerists, I would go so far as to argue, they could certainly fabricate an effective counter. The crossbow concept was known to the Romans after all (essentially the first pre torsion artillery were very heavy crossbows).
Tenzek:
Oleander, if you're just going to flame me I am going to ignore you. I didn't accuse you of drawing your evidence yourself and I don't clutter my post with snide comments.
That picture you've shown me has a caption below it. Perhaps you'd notice that it's a 45lb draw weight, not the 150lb bows we've been speaking of. I am going to go out on a limb and say that a 45lb bow is easier to draw. Nice try. [edit: Also, notice how small that guy is. The actual bow itself comes to his shoulder before he's drawn it at all. Shoulder to nose isn't a very long draw. Notice in pictures of longbows being drawn, the edge of the bow is usually still over the forearm or maybe the elbow.]
I realize that a composite bow holds more power in a given size, but the longbow is larger to make up for that. Arguing that size has no bearing on the discussion makes no sense as that is a major factor in the designs of the bows. If you make a shorter composite bow, it will have less power than a longer composite bow of the same materials. The curves aren't simply the same for any size bow. The size will not change the fact that a longbow has a linear curve, but that is obviously not what I am trying to say and that shouldn't be difficult to see.
If you have F compared to x on a linear curve and F compared to x on a logarithmic or exponential curve, those two graphs will still overlap at a point. The bigger the size difference in the bows, the further along the x axis the longbow will run before the two graphs meet. The size of the longbow makes x larger even though F is the same, and in this way it covers more of its graph and increases the area under the curve. This is a simple concept and telling me I don't understand it won't disprove it.
In order to disprove it, you'd need to answer my questions that I asked before. How far can a composite bow be drawn? Don't give me the answer for a 45lb composite bow. When I give numbers or reasons, I am actually basing it on the bow I am talking about and not jumping around and taking unrelated information that suits me better. A longbow could be drawn over half of a meter, as I have said. This is a 150lb longbow as drawn by a professional.
Dysrow
Also Tenzek, you discount the evidence produced by your opposition, saying their experiments do not prove much. Let me ask you this: what have YOU done? What experiments have you personally attempted, or can cite in your favor?
1) All evidence in this thread, personally from posters, and otherwise from othe sources, points to the conclusion that the ancient bows were better than longbows.
2) Longbows were not standard medieval equipment, so even if you discount the first point it matters little because average medieval bows still sucked.
Oleander Ardens:
Well Tenzek I never had the intention to flame you; Good to know that you not accused me of drawing the specific pic - it seemed so. If you feel offended by the answer I'm sorry - but my arguments are still unanswered..
"That picture you've shown me has a caption below it. Perhaps you'd notice that it's a 45lb draw weight, not the 150lb bows we've been speaking of. I am going to go out on a limb and say that a 45lb bow is easier to draw. Nice try."
About the 45lbs: If you would have read my post carefully without thinking that I'm just flaming you, you would have noticed that I wanted you to read the caption and the text below. I pointed out that this was just a 45 lbs bow.
In fact I even stressed this fact because this guy also has a longbow with exactly the same drawing weight
Now I even quoted this guy how he says that the arrows which he shoots with a 45lbs Scythian replica bow are faster that the ones shoot with a 45lbs longbow. This is the logical consequence of the inherent advantages of the composite bow and is confirmed by this statement. So it was far more than a "nice try"
"[edit: Also, notice how small that guy is. The actual bow itself comes to his shoulder before he's drawn it at all. Shoulder to nose isn't a very long draw. Notice in pictures of longbows being drawn, the edge of the bow is usually still over the forearm or maybe the elbow.]"
Well I never said it was Arnie, but I said that he is using the modern anchor point which is used these days by almost all archers. Sarmantian and Scythian archers usually pulled th sinew a good deal behind the right ear. It would really help when you would read my posts with care..
I know well that the edge of the longbow can be sometimes more closer to the archer than the edges of the composite bow. But I fail to see any advantage in it, as long the effective draw of the sinew is equal, perhaps you could explain it? I'm really eager to know...
"I realize that a composite bow holds more power in a given size, but the longbow is larger to make up for that. Arguing that size has no bearing on the discussion makes no sense as that is a major factor in the designs of the bows."
Again it would help if you would read my posts more carefully before making any comments. I never said that size has no importance - I just pointed out that the size of bow is already reflected in the calculation. In fact the efficiency of 0.9, which is superior to other, shorter shelf-bows is a caused by the greater length of the longbow..
"If you make a shorter composite bow, it will have less power than a longer composite bow of the same materials."
Perfectly right. As I explained above, if it is of the same shape and same construction it will have a higher efficiency..
"The curves aren't simply the same for any size bow."
I'm sorry to say it again, but once again a carefully read would have help to save time. I never said that curves are the same for "any size bow", and I explained it above, any even in a earlier post..
"The size will not change the fact that a longbow has a linear curve, but that is obviously not what I am trying to say and that shouldn't be difficult to see."
I see very well what you want to say, it's a pity, but it's wrong. The size of the longbow already determined the (almost) linear curve of the longbow - if he would be shorter his F/x curve would be hanging toward the line x, with a smaller area under it. He would be in poor words be less powerful...
In fact this another great advantage of the decent composite bows of equal drawing weight:
They perform not only better, but do it even with a more compact size...
"If you have F compared to x on a linear curve and F compared to x on a logarithmic or exponential curve, those two graphs will still overlap at a point."
Right. And if they have the same draw weight, than they will do that in the start and the endpoint.
"The bigger the size difference in the bows, the further along the x axis the longbow will run before the two graphs meet."
Not necessary. Note that x shows from the starting point only the length which the sinew is pulled back. And as also smaller composite bows can easily have due their construction without problems the same draw than the longbow your comment is only at best partially correct when taking about shelf-bows. Not in our case, I'm sorry...
"The size of the longbow makes x larger even though F is the same, and in this way it covers more of its graph and increases the area under the curve. This is a simple concept and telling me I don't understand it won't disprove it."
It is a simple concept but as I told your above it is a seriously flawed. I understand they way you think very well indeed, but as the size of a bow isn't directly related with the length of the draw, especially of composite bows, your correct theoretical. calculation of a bigger area is of now value for our discussion. Sorry, but that's how physic works...
"In order to disprove it, you'd need to answer my questions that I asked before. How far can a composite bow be drawn?
Don't give me the answer for a 45lb composite bow."
It would be fine if you would also once answer a question of mine, but anyway. Every good bow was made so that the guy using it could draw it to his preferred anchor point without all to much problems. That way the bow and the archer would perform best. In exactly the same way good composite bow were made. So the answer is easy: As far as the user wanted to draw it - the draw weight of the bow was only about how much lbs he could pull back to this "anchor" point...
"When I give numbers or reasons, I am actually basing it on the bow I am talking about and not jumping around and taking unrelated information that suits me better."
This is a serious offense indeed. If you actually blame me for giving clearly related information, so that the reader can more easily understand the discussion, than you have reached a low point...
"A longbow could be drawn over half of a meter, as I have said. This is a 150lb longbow as drawn by a professional"
As it becomes clear by the arguments above a composite bow could be at least be drawn over the same distance. Also with a drawing-weight of 150lbs or more, depending on the strength of the guy in question...
Now please do read my post as careful as I read yours. If you want to question my arguments, fine. But try to prove them wrong with better arguments and not the ones which I have proven wrong. As you see, you are the only visible one in this thread which has a different opinion than almost all others on that issue. It might be no coincidence that they agree with me, and my arguments and not yours...
Cheers
OA
Tenzek:
To Oleander:
I am reading your post, but your evidence is still not related to what you're saying. A 45lb bow is something you give a kid for his first bow, and the guy isn't even big enough to draw it fully. What does this have to do with what we're talking about?
I am reading your posts, I just don't see a correlation between what you say and what you show.
Also, for someone who wants to use calculations, you're sure reluctant to give me a number. Not every longbow was drawn exactly 0.5 meters. We're using reasonable esitmates. How far would the bow be drawn?
Edit: Actually, I can't find information on what length a typical Mongolian or Scythian longbow was expected to be drawn. I just keep finding estimates of 80-160 lbs of effective force depending on the bow and the user. I don't accept your reasoning that the composite bow was drawn as far as the longbow. You said so earlier in your post and then cited it later in your post and considering it established fact.
I did find information that the Mongolian composite bow, which may have been as powerful as 160 lbs of effective force was used during the crusades. In order to deal with that, light cloth that wouldn't tear was worn. This allowed the arrow to be removed by pulling carefully on the shirt. This doesn't speak of impressive armor piercing power.
Oleander Ardens:
"I am reading your post, but your evidence is still not related to what you're saying. A 45lb bow is something you give a kid for his first bow, and the guy isn't even big enough to draw it fully. What does this have to do with what we're talking about?"
I won't comment on the first part. I tried hard to explain it to you, it could my fault. But than again others seems to understand it very well...
"I am reading your posts, I just don't see a correlation between what you say and what you show."
Again your are the seemingly the only one. But than again it could be my fault...
Also, for someone who wants to use calculations, you're sure reluctant to give me a number. Not every longbow was drawn exactly 0.5 meters. We're using reasonable esitmates."
I use calculations, and we're infact sometimes using reasonable estimates. I'm reluctant to give exact numbers when I'm not completly sure - at least this is the way science works.
But you can also make calculations and compare two different objects without using exact numbers when you know the relationsship between the all important factors. For example when I pointed clearly out why a decent composite bow is superior to the longbow... I hope you remember it.
"How far would the bow be drawn?"
This is the last time I'll comment your words here. If a 1.9 m tall Sakae/Scythian draws his scyhtian bow a good deal behind the right ear than around 0.65 m. If a 1.7 m tall Syrian archer draws his "persian" bow to his ear slightly less than 0.5 m. So it greatly depends on the size of the man, but also on his favorite anchor point and on his bow.
The last words: If somebody doesn't listen or doesn't understand what the others write it is time to finish a "discussion". Perhaps you are the one to blame, perhaps I. The readers will have made up their mind in any case...
Cheers
OA
This was more or less all, concerning the Bow debate, hopefully didn't I forget something.
Make up your mind ~;)
OA
Play the Turks and try the Futuwwa and Janissary Infantry. Get them up to V2 (or morale 8) and give them an armor upgrade. Not quite the value of LBs, which are clearly the best bow and very good hybrids, but pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by fester
ichi
When you said Eastern equivilent, I thought you meant the Chinese or something like that.
Hello,
I can't provide referenced sources to this question, I'll say that upfront, but I did have the opportunity to speak at length with a gentleman who used to shoot English longbows, now competes in mounted archery competition with Hunnish bows, and had just had the opportunity to fire a Mongol style bow.
I should also mention that he is a blacksmith, and makes reproduction arrowheads in his spare time by copying originals and using the original methods. Quite the interesting individual.
Anyway, he explained what he knew about arrows, and what his impressions were of the bows he used. He explained that there was and still is an argument within the bowyer business over whether the greatest effect was achieved by heavy arrows with narrow round or square in cross-section arrowheads traveling at a slower speed, or by lighter arrows with broader heads travelling at high speed.
The longbow delivers a heavy arrow with a bodkin (narrow, usually square in cross section, and very pointy) point at a great distance, but it pays for this by a reduction in speed due to the weight of the arrow. That's alright, because the principle of a longbow shot at range is to allow gravity + weight + small impacting surface area to do most of the work.
The Mongol bows on the other hand used very lightweight arrows shot at incredible velocity. This means that the speed of the arrow, rather than the weight of the arrow, was to provide the primary penetrating force.
The gentelman also commented that the first time he fired a Mongol bow, he completely overshot his target, because the shot did not have nearly the drop over distance he was used to from longbow shooting. I'm sorry, but I cannot provide any information about penetrative power. It's probably safe to assume that the Mongol bows could fire farther because of the higher speed of shot, and likewise would have been more accurate, but because their arrows relied upon speed to provide penetration, their effective range could have been much less than their actual carrying distance. However, I don't know, just food for thought.
this is all very interesting but I think that the original poster was talking about within the game whether muslim (eastern) faction have a longbow like unit.
however, this is not to say that I don't appreciate this turn as this thread is far more interesting if we discuss the historical examples and likely wouldn't be exhausted as fast.
Off the top of my head, Chu Ku Nu appeared in AOE2. I wonder what they really were. (since AOE2 is not entirely historical)
likely just to demonstrate the superior level of crossbowmen that the Chinese had. Even during the Roman times, the Chinese had crossbows and tumped a Roman contingent in a battle.
heavy inf die to AP crossbows.
CKNs were likely to show the damage and killing power. nice to stop champ floods with.
I even remember someone bringing down a castle using 40 ECKN's! ROFL
The Chu Ko Nu/Zhung Nu doesn't sound like something you'd want to use against heavily armored infantry, with Ming dynasty texts apparently recommending that the bolts are poisoned to make up for the lack of penetrating power. It's also apparently rather inaccurate and short ranged, with an effective range of 60-80 yards. It seems that its main use was as a siege weapon, mounted on walls, enabling the defenders to pepper the enemy during an assault.
I'm curious as to what Chinese/Roman battle you're referring to. There's unsubstantiated belief that a small number of Romans may have escaped the Parthians after being captured at Carrhae in 53BC, finding shelter among the Huns who were then stomped on by the Chinese near Tashkent in 36BC. Even if the account is true, the battle is hardly an endorsement of the superiority of the Chinese military over that of the Romans. Any Romans at the battle would have been a relatively minor contingent, and more importantly would have been somewhat past their prime, after anything up to 17 years of captivity.
Sorry for going of topic, but That ws the biggest reply ever. :2thumbsup:
The best are denitely longbows, the eastren other almost best is the jannisary archers(or something like that). but if your playing style is five knights and a thousand archers i say stick to the english
I read about an 'incident' around 95-100AD where upon hearing of Rome, the chinese emperor sent an army west to conquer it. For some strange reason, this army stopped somewhere in asia-minor and returned home without any battles taking place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner