does the longbow have an eastern equivalent

[katank]

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

[Sinner]

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.

[Lonewarrior]

Sorry for going of topic, but That ws the biggest reply ever.

[amir]

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

[Qilue]

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.

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.