EB's reflection of archery

i've heard that in the current RTW archery cannot be reflected properly, since it can't realy hold back and disrupt.
so how will EB handle archery, since it is way to deadly in RTW. please dont make accounts as: archery won the battle of agincourt or carrhae. both weren't.

agincourt was won due to the weather. the knights of france had much better armour as th emetal on the arrows: the bodkin point could not penatarte! the mud at the battle was so stickey that fallen knight couldn't get up, ut the lighter archers ( switching to knives) could easily run circels around teh knights...

Carrchae was technically won by arrows, but was messed up by the romans.
the commander ( i believe crassus) was very confident in the testudo fomration ( almost as much as hollywood) and thought they copuld easily withstand the fire. but due to teh constant supply of arrows the steppe troops won. carrhae might have taken up an entire day to detroy many units before the catapracts came ( if they did, i'm not sure) in rtw carrhae should take about 10 min...

so archery is uselessly overpowerd, probably hollywood influence. even black skies of arrows didn;t do much damages, it just gave good shade.. ~:handball:

Sorry, archery was extremely important. You are thinking about Romans and their contempariaries. But the easterners used archery, and it was a key compenent.
And no, it wasn't just because of Crassus' stupidity. Carhae was won due to the Parthians, not the because the Roman's stupidity. Without the steppe tactics, the Romans still would have won. And guess what? Steppe tactics are based on archery. And their bows certaintly did kill. But the Parthians didn't only use horse archers, as the cataphracts and other heavy and medium cavalry played some role, though probably not that big.
But composite bows, as were used by the people of the steppe, and other Easterners, were deadly. Even the Greeks had decent archery (at least the Cretians). So don't make blanket statements that archery had no use. It was key to many cultures, and it did play a major role.
Just not with Rome, and it's neighbors. What you are saying is like saying that cavalry is to important in the game. While it may be true for the Romans, not for all cultures.

so it was important, ok. sorry about that. but than again was it effective? did it kill or distrupt?

ok. it always seemed weird that teh forrester warband with its strait bow was one of teh best archers..looked weir. were they so good? was the curved bow so much better? will this be implemented?

Yes, the composite bow was far superior to any self bow, including the longbow. They had greater range, and required less force, and were smaller.
And yes it will be in EB. We will represent the different sorts of bows different people had.

As for effective, it depends what you mean, and how the people you're talking about used it. A lot of cultures just used it for pre skirmishing, to kill off a few, and bother the rest. But others had archers in a lot more important role, and those tended to be the ones with the superior bows. The were still used in a harrasing fashion, but it was a lot more prolonged and deadly than say the Romans, or Celts. And they were far better archers. The Eastern nomads, and even the more settled Easteners were excellent archers. Instead of the bow being a backup weapon, it was a main weapon for the nomadic cavalry and many settled nation's cavalry.
But even the steppe horse archers couldn't win a battle on there own. They needed back up of some kind. All had some sort of heavier cavalry, and most had some sort of infantry. Even the Parthians, who were very horse oriented tended to have a 2 to 1 ratio of infantry to horsemen.

So archery was important, and deadly, but it can't really win a battle on it's own. Unless you are playing an infantry faction, and don't have any cavalry to chase off the archers. Then you deserve to suffer the fate that Crassus and other settled people did against horse archers. ~;)

i'm really talking to teh right person for this...thxn for the info.
ok so how will the archery of the 'barbarians' be handled? if they were inferior they won't kill much and will thus be pretty much junk. becuase (to me) archers can only kill, the disruption would be difficult to implement.
and the ancient question: will (the best) archers be better than (the best) peltast in EBTW? noton a 1 vs 1 basis but on kills vs infantry ( including melee when empty or not..)

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?

A foot archer generally carries a larger bow and heavier arrows than an HA would.

Yes, they will Demon. A composite bow carrying footman will shoot better than a composite bow wielding horseman.

Quote:

---

ok so how will the archery of the 'barbarians' be handled? if they were inferior they won't kill much and will thus be pretty much junk. becuase (to me) archers can only kill, the disruption would be difficult to implement.

---

Well I don't know much about the Celts, Germans and Iberian archery types, and how effective they were.

Quote:

---

and the ancient question: will (the best) archers be better than (the best) peltast in EBTW? noton a 1 vs 1 basis but on kills vs infantry ( including melee when empty or not..)

---

Haha, the archer vrs. javilen. Well, it depends. The weakest horse archer can still trample a peltlast. But a foot archer compared against a peltlast? Hmm. Again, it all depends on where each one is from. But I think that they serve different purposes. Javileneers throw, then either run away and let the others finish the fight, or charge themselves if they can fight. Archers can continue to from far away to pepper the enemies, but generally tend to be less tough in melee than javilen chuckers. Again, this is generalization, and I'm not reall sure. But a javilen will kill a man far easier than the best of arrows. But you need to get a lot closer and you can only carry so many of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

Carrchae was technically won by arrows, but was messed up by the romans.

---

On the strategic level, yes, Crassus acted foolishly, and the small matter of being betrayed by a Parthian-employed infiltrator didn't help. Once the battle started, however, the Romans had no chance of winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

the commander ( i believe crassus) was very confident in the testudo fomration ( almost as much as hollywood) and thought they copuld easily withstand the fire.

---

I've read both of the ancient accounts of the battle (AFAIK, there are only two), and neither ventures a guess as to what Crassus thought he could do. He hadn't, if I remember correctly, ever faced the Parthians before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

but due to teh constant supply of arrows the steppe troops won. carrhae might have taken up an entire day to detroy many units before the catapracts came ( if they did, i'm not sure)

---

Testudo didn't work in part because the arrows punched straight through Roman shields, pinning their hands to them and forcing them to lower them. The cataphracts were there from the very start, and they also stopped the Romans from using testudo effectively, as they would charge if the Romans tried closing up, and testudo gave the Romans no room to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Yes, the composite bow was far superior to any self bow, including the longbow.

---

The English longbow was a composite bow, although made somewhat differently from the ancient Eastern composite bows. That is, it was made out of one piece of yew, but the heartwood and sapwood formed a natural composite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demonarchangel

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?

---

I can't speak for EB, but I'd guess that Eastern foot archers will be somewhat better than Eastern horse archers, but Eastern horse archers may still be superior to Western horse archers.

-Simetrical

Celtic archery varies heavily depedent on region, even within a single culture. Celts covered such wide areas, local archers were skilled in forms of archery most useful to them. Such as Rhaetic and Noricene archers, who were mountain folk. They fought in relatively confined spaces, so they didn't worry about great range. Rather, their archery was more favored for wounding, cutting, piercing, and killing infantry, in close quarters. They would be more prone to fire hails of arrows, and probably not really aim. That's a far cry from Lemovices and Aquitannes archers, who fired at longer ranges, and very far from the archers of the 'Welsh' Britons, who focused on the length of the shot (culminating later in the yew longbow), because the terrain, while hilly, did offer flats, and plenty of options for long range bows to come into play. Celtic archers, if you want to generalize though, generally focused on somewhat longer range than average bows, but the real focus was on the quality of arrow heads, which were specialized into many different shapes, to be used against different forms of armor, against cavalry, unarmored infantry, and so on. Goidils, on the other hand, hardly ever used archers. At range, they preferred slings, but most battles in Ireland (and Mann, and the parts of Britain and Gaul they'd invade/raid) offer little chance for range. The sling is good in close, and far away, and doesn't make it awkward to carry a decent backup weapon, as bows are significantly clunkier to carry about. When they did use archers, they were either essentially hunters levied together, 'native', non-Celtic archers according to a lot of stories (which would be pretty much wiped out by this point anyway), or extremely specialized elites who were mainly used for ambushing small parties (like a travelling diplomat and his entourage, not a large army). Belgae were much like Gauls, but they sometimes mounted archers up (not by our period though, I don't think). These horse archers would be sub-standard at best, absolute shit at worst. They weren't trained to fight that way, they'd essentially be just archers made a bit more mobile, probably just irritants. The kind of specialization and regional concerns make archers for the Celts a bit tough to pin down, the variety is so great, so they'll be using a fair quality, somewhat generic archer, that should be pretty straight forward. Celts will also have slingers as a ranged compliment, as Celts were very fond of sling combat at all social levels. Archers/slingers should be able of playing a large role in a Celtic army, but not necessarily NEED to play a large role, specifically for the Gauls. Their archers are outclassed by others, but they should be of fair enough quality to be a decent irritation in small numbers, and a very real threat in somewhat large numbers. The historic role, generally, is that of irritation. Occupiers, annoyances, they would draw attention away from the main force.

So...anyway. Barbarian archers in general should be useful. Nothing too grand, I don't think, but Celtic archers, I know, should be a tad above average, but not really great at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Steppe Merc, will foot archers outperfom HAs in terms of shooting power?

A foot archer generally carries a larger bow and heavier arrows than an HA would.

---

The Tatars under Tamerlane were known for carrying two different bows. One which was used during shooting from the saddle at speed or within combat itself. They were devoted to the bow, and was their favourite weapon so would only abandon their bows during battle if they absolutely had to enter melee. However, there was a second bow that was known to be rather heavy and be around 5 feet tall. It was to be used when dismounted, but they did use them from the saddle on occaision. Most steppe warriors implimented multiple kinds of arrows. Some for range, some for piercing armour, some for close range - the Mongols were renound for their whistling arrows for signals during battle. The Tatars even affixed Naphta to their arrows and procured small arrow grenades.

Though this is all a millenia after the timeframe we're discussing, there were still different kinds of bows and arrows used from horseback.

Starting in late republic/early imperial times even the romans increasingly used archers and horse archers. Probably because they had seen the usefullness of such units fighting for their new enemys like the parthians.
Most of the roman archer units were stationed in the east, northwest africa and the at the eastern danube frontier to counter their mobile enemys their. But horse archers were also a part of Germanicus army in the 14ad-16ad campaign against the germans.
The greater part of the 46 known archer units of the auxilia around 100ad were horse archer or mixed units. A part of the equites singulares augusti was also equipped with bows.
11 alae quingenariae sagittarii ( out of ~75)
8 cohortes equitatae millariae sagittarii( out of ~22)
9 cohortes equitatae quingenariae sagittarii( out of ~77)
18 corhortes sigitarii ( out of ~18 cohortes millariae and 132 quingenariae)
The roman archers were mostly recruited in the east and so they also used the composite bow. This era was the only time period when composite bows were in widespread use in central europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

The English longbow was a composite bow, although made somewhat differently from the ancient Eastern composite bows. That is, it was made out of one piece of yew, but the heartwood and sapwood formed a natural composite.

-Simetrical

---

Yes, but unlike the composite bow of 'the East' and of India, it was not recurved, making it a lot less effective.

Longbow penetration power, which is a good topic here since Germanic tribes used it extensively as well, depended not on the power of the bow, but on the arrow used. The English/Welsh longbow was used together with the bodkin arrow, an arrow with a heavy, barbed head which apparently (for reasons I do not personally know) was quite effective at penetrating contemporary armor.

What that means for Germanic factions? Their bows may have range, but a lot less power than the composite, recurved bows of the Eastern factions.



~Wiz

How will roman-trained bows be? Effective or ineffective? Range long, medium or short? Afaik the roman archery started using composite bows so late that it's halfway out of the time scope of EB, so I'm curious whether roman archers will be good, average or bad in the EB mod?

Well, all I know is that the Romans utilized the composite bow, but did not use the thumb ring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

How will roman-trained bows be? Effective or ineffective? Range long, medium or short? Afaik the roman archery started using composite bows so late that it's halfway out of the time scope of EB, so I'm curious whether roman archers will be good, average or bad in the EB mod?

---

i may have read that pre-marius rome did not use archer but funditores who where slingers.

btw, isn't teh english longbow out of our timeframe? is there anybodt who knows the comparision?

Quote:

---

btw, isn't teh english longbow out of our timeframe? is there anybodt who knows the comparision?

---

Yeah, I believe it wasn't used until medieval times really, although apparently (according to some chap on some forums), it was used for long long before then, just not on the same scale or in the same way. The reason it was used over composite bows in medieval times was that composite bows tend to fall apart if it gets cold or damp, which is pretty much how it is in Britain all the time, making composite bows pretty useless.

Actually maybe that should be added in to the mod, that composite-armed units get penalties in wet places?

Not to interject too much, but it's not an English longbow. The longbow in question is of Welsh origin. Calling it English is a misnomer; the English used Welsh bowmen, and eventually trained many English longbowmen, but the weapon is appropriately called the Welsh longbow, regardless of the nationality of the archer, because it is of Welsh design (like the gladius is a gladius hispanicus). And yes, it's out of period (for the most part), but that isn't the point. It can still be used as an example of a form of archery. Welsh longbow practices weren't meant to disrupt, they were used to kill large numbers of enemy soldiers, and with the adaptations of heads to varying forms of armor, they were also later used to kill heavily armored knights and footmen. The point made here is that archery need not simply be a disruptive tactic, regardless of the bow or heads employed. A proper type of arrow, with enough velocity, and enough of them in the air, can do great damage to a force. It all depends on how a culture employs archers, and the role they intended archers to play. If you can employ sizable numbers of archers who can fire great distances with decent accuracy, they quickly become much more important than disrupting, they can soften an enemy up significantly and make a serious difference. If your archers are shorter range, have poorer quality arrows, etc., then, of course, you won't be cutting apart enemies with them, but they're still good for disruption.

One REALLY important thing about horse archers in EB...

As you all know, 1.2 has the nerfed HAs. I believe that someone managed to unnerf them with a new skeleton or something.

This actually presents an interesting opportunity:

Parthians, Scythians, and Armenians should have HA that can shoot while galloping.

All other factions have the standard 1.2 HA, that is ones that cannot shoot while moving.

I really thought The welsh had short bows,
They used to use em for Ambush attacks and stuff.

they were really powerfull and its been recorded that an arrow shot from 1 of these bows went through a 4 inch oak door,

Also reports of ambushes of welsh bandits attacking people on horse back,

1 account states that an arrow fired from a welsh bow went through the riders leg
killed the horse then partialy exited the horse on the other side Piercing the knight "or whatever it was" Through the other leg.

i really think the welsh used short bows and thats why They used em in close combat.

So is that Stong Bow but bad range?

how ever I seem to recall something about biows being prety usless for the english untill the made long bows,

The Welsh did use shortbows, but it didn't mean they couldn't also use longbows. The English didn't invent the longbow, the widespread usage of a yew longbow was POPULARIZED by the English, but the Welsh were the progenators of the bow originally. After England conquered Wales, they adopted the bow, because Welsh longbows, not shortbows, had utterly maimed huge portions of their infantry during the war.

We should not be thinking of Longbows and bodkin arrows as these were developed much later.

Longbows are not composite, no matter how this statement is justified, they were made from a single piece of wood regardless of heartwood and sapwood. Longbows are self bows.

Bodkins were manufactured in two types, the needle point and short point. They were forged in a square shape that tapered to a point, long in the needle point and short in the other. The needle point was intended for use against mail, the narrow point would the pierce the mail link and as it entered, the four edges would cut/force open and allow the arrow to enter. The short bodkin worked in a similar principle to a punch tool. The sharp point was intended to make the initial piercinging of plate, the four edges would then cut and pop a hole into which the arrow could enter. Against plate, the needle point would have bent.

Even if bows used at this time were 'long', they can not and should not be compared with a weapon that rose to prominence during late mediaeval times.

Arrows of this period would also be nowhere near as developed as mediaeval arrows, even the Huns were still using bone arrow tips in many cases in 4th C AD

.......Orda

Exactly Orda, and that is why Germanic archers may have the range, but not the power of Eastern and Indian archers.



~Wiz

keep it in the timeframe. the (welsh) english longbow is out of the period.

soembodt staded that composite bows could kill from afar. is this true? can composite bow arrows really kill much? how mcuh will it be on avarage?

like this: 40 fired 5 killed 5-40 this is common on rtw. how much will the be in ebtw? how much will peltasts be?

again: wich one will kill most infantrymen on a flat land? not vs each other but vs inf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

The Welsh did use shortbows, but it didn't mean they couldn't also use longbows. The English didn't invent the longbow, the widespread usage of a yew longbow was POPULARIZED by the English, but the Welsh were the progenators of the bow originally. After England conquered Wales, they adopted the bow, because Welsh longbows, not shortbows, had utterly maimed huge portions of their infantry during the war.

---

Correct. The introduction of the Welsh longbow to the world, in a way that would became the mainstay of English tactics in the 100 Years War was due to Eduard I of England (aka "Longshanks"). This occurred after the conquest of Wales, in which his troops suffered himmenselly to the hands of the Welsh yeomen wielding yew longbows. He was so impressed by their habilities and the bow's capacity that, immediatelly after conquest, hired and/or conscripted these longbowmen to fight with him in France and in the wars against the Scots. After Eduard I, the longbow and the longbowmen became a strategic resourse for England. But the technology and the technique was fully invented and developed by the Welsh.

longshanks is 1400AD, this is 200 BC, please man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

longshanks is 1400AD, this is 200 BC, please man!

---

I was just removing any doubts about the origins of the longbow that the English popularized during the 100 Years War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

soembodt staded that composite bows could kill from afar. is this true? can composite bow arrows really kill much? how mcuh will it be on avarage?

like this: 40 fired 5 killed 5-40 this is common on rtw. how much will the be in ebtw? how much will peltasts be?

again: wich one will kill most infantrymen on a flat land? not vs each other but vs inf.

---

I could tell you all, but then I would have to kill you... :wink:

you really have much time on your hands don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

Longbows are not composite, no matter how this statement is justified, they were made from a single piece of wood regardless of heartwood and sapwood. Longbows are self bows.

---

They were made from a single multilayered piece of wood, and therefore were functionally composite. They may, however, have more closely resembled self bows than Eastern composite bows in terms of construction. Either way is reasonable, neither is particularly better than the other, but if you use a definition of self bow that includes the longbow, the statement that "the composite bow was far superior to any self bow" is entirely unjustifiable.

-Simetrical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

you really have much time on your hands don't you?

---

Well, if you really think that, then you're quite clueless...

i didn't mean to flame. i just thought the 'then i will have to kill you' comment was very lame.
but with all the EB members going around. why can't i just get the answer without everybody changig the fucking subject?