Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Lingchih]

So, something that has always bothered me. Crossbows are armor piercing, while Longbows are not.

Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?

Crossbowmen were generally poorly trained troops who could crank a handle, and shoot quickly without much training. Longbowmen were highly trained veterans, who could shoot with amazing force. I believe the longbow hit with much more force than the the crossbow.

So, why are Longbows not armor piercing?

[analytic_kernel]

I've wondered that as well.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that a properly trained Welsh or English longbowman could achieve a greater rate of fire than a continental crossbowman or arbalestier(?). I'm not sure if that was comparing against cranequin(?)-style crossbows or ones that used a lever (goat's foot?) to tension.

One difference is that you can aim a crossbow. My understanding is that longbowmen involved their entire bodies in drawing their bows, and so it was difficult to aim. So, they had to make up the difference with greater range and rate of fire.

[Omnirizon]

i've actually done some light research on this topic as i prepare to add these items, alongside firearms, into the Fourth Age project.

Longbows:
less force
higher rate of fire
years of training required

crossbow:
more force
lower rate of fire
weeks of training required

firearms:
terrible aim
dangerous
cheap
little to no training required. the weapons had such poor accuracy there was actually no point in training marksmenship. all soldiers needed to know how to do was to prepare the weapon to fire and to move in the correct formations.

i've read that firearms were actually cheaper than crossbows, which is the another reason they were used, other wise they were worse in every capacity (except for low train time).

the ammunition required for the weapons was another reason firearms were used.

longbows:
fletching requires skill and is expensive. it may take weeks to produce a bundle of war worthy arrows.

crossbows:
bolts require less skill and less money

firearms:
shot required little skill and could be made quickly for very little money. soldiers could actually produce their own shot in the field if necessary.

lastly, their were environmental factors.

longbows:
wind could easily cause stray arrows

crossbow:
with more force, wind was less of a factor

firearms:
wind had relatively little effect on firearm shot. additionally, the accuracy of the weapon itself was so poor a little straying didn't matter at all. additionally, all the smoke would foul cavalry charges a little. however, in the rain the weapons were little more than clubs.

[Jazzepi]

A couple of points on crossbows as well. Much like modern guns, crossbows didn't require the extensive training that longbows did to fire. You could give anyone a crossbow, and show them how to load it. Beyond the ability to turn a crank, or stretch the initial string, the force of the weapon was completely independent of the wielder's own strength. Obviously they still have to aim the thing, but the mechanics beyond that are very simple.

It was also my understanding that the mud in the field made it very, very difficult for the knights on foot to do any fighting. Since the bottom of their feet were basically broad plates of metal, they would squish down into the mud, and then when the knights when to lift their feet out of it, there would be a huge amount of suction keeping them in place. The longbow men had much different foot wear (I can't remember exactly what) that was /much/ better suited for fighting in the muddy field that they were fighting on.

Jazzepi

[Horst F. JENS]

Another factor favouring firearms over bows/crossbows was the quantity of ammunition a solider could carry.

Transporting 50 arrows takes a lot more space than transporting 50 bullets and gunpoder.

[Illuminated One]

I agree with the OP.
Imo longbows should be armor piercing but much more expensive than crossbowmen.

Another thing that I find funny about missile troops is that slingers are mostly represented as inferior to archers.
Slings are superior to most bows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon)#Ancient_representations

[Aezeal]

I'm not convinced about the slingers really. That wiki has obviously been made by someone fond about sling (as will the wiki's of all weapons probably) but to me.. I look at it practically.

In midevil times shepards had slings in wide use, IF they where so much better overall (better range etc) then they would never have started using the more expensive arrows.

I think the main point of it is that sling bullets aren't AP..

In dominions it's sad there is only regular, AP (50%) and AN (100%) ... a % of AP (0-100) would probably be better as a value for weapons.

Blunt weapons (maces and slings etc) would then have like 5-10% AP,
swords 10-20% AP
piercing arrows 50%
crossbows 65 %

and magic weapons sometimes 100%.

(Omni if you are still in here, plz think about this as an extra stat too weaponry for your game in addtion to dmg/att/def

[BesucherXia]

Another thing that I find funny about missile troops is that slingers are mostly represented as inferior to archers.
Slings are superior to most bows.


Some slingers do have shields (i.e Marverni ones), which give them edge over archers.

Besides, I beileve slingers are much cheaper and thus useful in skirmish against bowmen. They are very effective in beating independent missile cavalries if deployed carefully.

[Endoperez]

Slings are better than early, poor-quality bows used in Biblical times and during the early Roman empire. I'm not sure when bows evolved to the point where arrows had longer range than sling bullets, but Mongol recurve bows and English longbows both had better range. Those would be Longbows and Composite Bows in dominions terms.

Aezeal's guess about sling bullets not being armor-piercing also comes pretty close. The blunt trauma sling can deal is amazing, and armor doesn't help that much unless it is padded well. I think medieval armor had more protective layers of cloth and/or leather than e.g. Greek hoplites used.

I used to practice slinging and read about them quite a bit. Funny story: when I was doing my military service, we had to do a 60 km march across the woods doing all kinds of stupid stuff along the way. The first task we had to do was two-fold: to replace a person's backbag with one we made from natural materials and stuff we had with us; and to make a sling. I had my sling with me, of course, and got to shine for a moment. Unfortunately, I lost the sling later during the march, I guess it fell into a swamp when we were taking a "shortcut".

[Illuminated One]

Slings are better than early, poor-quality bows used in Biblical times and during the early Roman empire. I'm not sure when bows evolved to the point where arrows had longer range than sling bullets, but Mongol recurve bows and English longbows both had better range. Those would be Longbows and Composite Bows in dominions terms.

Aezeal's guess about sling bullets not being armor-piercing also comes pretty close. The blunt trauma sling can deal is amazing, and armor doesn't help that much unless it is padded well. I think medieval armor had more protective layers of cloth and/or leather than e.g. Greek hoplites used.

Didn't hoplites wear armor mostly made from linen? Although that point may be true.
Which would still leave short bows (which are the majority of bows in dominions IIRC).

In midevil times shepards had slings in wide use, IF they where so much better overall (better range etc) then they would never have started using the more expensive arrows.

Hmm, that depends what you mean by overall.
Longbows and crossbow were better than early firearms and were still replaced by them.
The sling might be more effective and less expensive to make than a shortbow, but it requires far more training to use effectively. Well, anyone can shoot a shortbow but with a sling you always risk shooting yourself in the head. :D
Also bows/crossbows should be superior when fighting in tight formations or medieval castles.

[Gandalf Parker]

I thought that the big difference between crossbow and longbow was range?
A crossbow tended to be frontline, you shot at big things close up, they hit with lots of force and the troop only needed to be able to hit the broad side of a barn (which happened to be charging him).
Longbows shot from far back, high arches, rained down upon the enemy. As the enemy drew closer they tended to shoot directly and needed to hit man sized targets.

Slings were just a non-magical shards spell. A rain of stones whose affects were less about damage and more about the raining down and minor wounds on morale. I handt considered the "hitting yourself on the head" thing. Yes slings might have fallen out of favor with the use of tight formations. The same timing and reasoning as quarterstaffs giving way to pikes, swinging swords giving way to stabbing ones, etc.

[GrudgeBringer]

A couple of points (and excuse my spelling)

A. One of the reasons Shepards continued to use Slings even after Bows where more or less the Weapon of choice amonst the Armies of the time, is that shepards had to be prepared to fight off wild animals ALL the time. They had no time to run over and pick up thier bow, find the arrows and THEN get off a shot. By then the Wolf already was gone with the meal.

Shepards didn't just use slings when in formation shooting at a target that was coming for the most part straight at them.

Another reason is Shepards had a tendency to use thier Slings on the run,
while chasing or fighting off predators.

There is one version of David and Goliath that says that David started RUNNING at Goliath when he used his sling. The Reason, because he was used to chasing predators and was more accurate while moving.

2. I saw a documentary about the battle at Agincourt that pitted a Longbow of the day agianst the best armour that the French Knights would have used in that battle.

The results whre startling...Until very close, FEW of the arrows could pierce the Armour.

What turnd the battle was that the Archers where massed at the bridge and the Knights tried to go around the bridge.

Unfortunetly, It has been rainng for 2 days and the knight got bogged down letting the archers fire at close range.

Even this didn't win the battle (though it certainly had an impact).

The archers shot the horses which threw the knights to the gound in the deep muck and as they piled upon each other the ones on the bottom suffocated while the ones on the top took fire at close range.

But, It WAS the first battle that Longbows where used and they DID win the day..even if it wasn't like we thought.

Agian, it was a documentary (History International)....I have not done any study on it.

just an opinion.

[Endoperez]

Slings were just a non-magical shards spell. A rain of stones whose affects were less about damage and more about the raining down and minor wounds on morale. I handt considered the "hitting yourself on the head" thing. Yes slings might have fallen out of favor with the use of tight formations. The same timing and reasoning as quarterstaffs giving way to pikes, swinging swords giving way to stabbing ones, etc.

I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with every point you make here.

Sling bullets were deadly. It's not throwing a rock at someone, but shooting it with enough force to break bones, or to go through your skin into your stomach. I never learned to aim properly, but it isn't hard to fling a stone with enough force to hear it ricochet even four or five times when thrown into a forest. You can't see it, of course, but the thunk-thunk-thunk sound it makes when it hits tree-trunks is quite satisfactory, and I saw small branches falling from where the stone flew. Small in this case being about the thickness of my thumb.

As for quarterstaves being replaced by pikes, well, quarterstaves were not weapons of war. They weren't meant to be, either. Pikes were designed to be used in formations, quarterstaves were not. Neither could be used to replace the other. Not to mention the size difference; short staff was half the length of a pike, or about two-and-half to three meters. There was also a long staff, but I don't think it's called quarterstaff.

Finally, "swinging swords giving way to stabbing" having "the same timing" as slings giving way to shortbows just isn't accurate to my knowledge. I was talking about slings being used in Biblical and in Roman times, and Romans used short thrusting swords but still relied on slingers. Balearic islanders were known as skilled slingers and were often recruited as mercenaries, including in Hannibal's campaign against Rome.

[Aezeal]

As I said I still think the main problem with slings was their AP potential is much less, with increasing armor their effectiveness dropped and relative effec of bows improved. I guess that being very precise over a long range with a sling is much more problematic than with a bow and that for new recruits (which IMHO a large number of the troops in big wars where) that meant the effect of arrows was again better (and later for crossbows which might be even better to aim somewhat)

[BesucherXia]

2. I saw a documentary about the battle at Agincourt that pitted a Longbow of the day agianst the best armour that the French Knights would have used in that battle.

The results whre startling...Until very close, FEW of the arrows could pierce the Armour.

What turnd the battle was that the Archers where massed at the bridge and the Knights tried to go around the bridge.

Unfortunetly, It has been rainng for 2 days and the knight got bogged down letting the archers fire at close range.

Even this didn't win the battle (though it certainly had an impact).

The archers shot the horses which threw the knights to the gound in the deep muck and as they piled upon each other the ones on the bottom suffocated while the ones on the top took fire at close range.

But, It WAS the first battle that Longbows where used and they DID win the day..even if it wasn't like we thought.

Agian, it was a documentary (History International)....I have not done any study on it.

just an opinion.

The first point is interesting, yet you must have made mistakes about Battle of Agincourt. The battle took place on a narrow grass between two forests, and most of the French knights were dismounted. Some further studies belive the french plate armors were well proved in that battle, just the mud and terrible leadership brought French that defeat.

I guess in game that's more like 100 man-at-arms under the curse of stone from Henry V get slaughtered by 30 longbowmen. (p.s, the longbowmen in game do have good strength for melee.)

[Gandalf Parker]

I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with every point you make here.

No problem. I was thinking of an article comparing the "everymans weapons" and "solo hero" imagery to what was claimed as a shift in weaponry for formation use even when it was not as effective. But it was more of a romantisized rennaisance fair type of article than an historical study. It seemed to hold some logic. Since Kristoffer seems to try and hold to both the historical and the romantisized it seemed worth offering up.

[jaif]

A. One of the reasons Shepards continued to use Slings even after Bows where more or less the Weapon of choice amonst the Armies of the time, is that shepards had to be prepared to fight off wild animals ALL the time. They had no time to run over and pick up thier bow, find the arrows and THEN get off a shot. By then the Wolf already was gone with the meal.

The problem with bows in this context is that you can't leave them strung all the time - you will ruin the bow. It's not a question of keeping the bow close at hand, it's a question of stringing it when you saw a predator.

On top of that, bows and arrows are expensive. Slings and ammunition are cheap.

-Jeff

[Aezeal]

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks :D

[Endoperez]

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks :D

:doh: Slings are better than poor bows, and there are thousands of years of wars fought before bows became better than slings.

Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.


This article (on slinging.org) (http://slinging.org/index.php?page=the-sling-in-medieval-europe---chris-harrison) has several chosen quotes about the slings' effectiveness. They probably chose the pro-slinging quotes, but at least this particular quote shows that slings could be as or even more effective as bows.

[chrispedersen]

Cretan, and miletan slingers were famous throughout the ancient world.

However it took years to be able to master the staff sling. Even more than longbowman.

Longbowman also had the advantage of indirect fire - ie., that they could fire *over* intervening troops.

But fundamentally, longbowman were simply out produced. I've seen studies that showed the 'muzzle' velocity for longbows and period crossbows of the time - were approximately even - and are still closer than you might think.

but good crossbows were much easier to mass produce than bows.

[Agema]

Longbowmen worked because the kings of England compelled the male population to train with them (I think) one day a week. They couldn't even be fired effectively without extensive development of the right muscles. Longbowmen had a distinctive lopsided shoulder musculature, I believe.

Further studies have shown that a top notch yew longbow with the right arrowhead would be devastating, but most longbows were cheaply produced with a poor arrowhead, and were not optimal for defeating armour, and generally a crossbow bolt had more force than a longbow arrow. By the time of Agincourt, the French armour was generally good enough to block a longbow arrow at range. You're quite right that the time and effort required to produce longbowmen and their weapons made them essentially impractical when gunpowder came along. A useful side effect of longbowmen's training which may have contributed to their effectiveness is that they would have been at least semi-professional troops, where most nations would merely have raw militia from the equivalent class. Longbows were still used up to at least the mid-16th century (e.g. Pinkie Cleugh), until gun technology got good enough to really make them obsolete.

I'm pretty sure that slings have another problem, which is that they require quite a lot of room to fire - you've got to whirl the sling without risk of hitting your neighbours. You can pack conventional bowmen very tightly, which means you can amass more firepower for your unit frontage, which is a huge plus when the intention is to use firepower to do major damage rather than skirmishing harassment.

[cleveland]

On the original question of armor penetration, I think it's really a Terminal Ballistics issue.

Neither the arrow nor bolt would be rotating (like a rifle bullet) so the longer arrow would be more subject to yawing & pitching than the bolt. Therefore, upon impact, the arrow would have a significantly higher chance of striking the target "off-center" with respect to the flightpath.

An off-center strike would cause the missile to deflect and/or shatter, significantly decreasing armor penetration...so a short bolt has a much higher chance of reliably penetrating armor.

But since the arrows & bolts have roughly the same kinetic energy, a proper arrow strike would be expected to penetrate armor, when it (rarely) occurs. This is how English Longbows were deployed, if I recall correctly: overcome the low chance of penetration by blotting out the sun with arrows. Something like a half-million arrows were fired at Crecy.

This seems to be well modeled in Dom3, with the DRN randomness.

I personally think a much more egregious oversight is that the Lance is not AP...this thing is the quintessential kinetic penetrator...

[Agema]

On the other hand, a Dom3 lance deals out quite enough damage to not need AP. A 25-protec thug without Awe staring at a line of charging cavalry should feel a large amount of trepidation.

[BesucherXia]

Besides lances, morning stars and maces are also very effective to hurt well armored persons since they are delivering stun damage instaed of slash or thrust.

A brainstorm: can we mod these weapons to give them a second effect of fatigue increase? That also hurts the heavy units a lot and those hitted will soon face AP damage just due to their fatigues.

[Agema]

I don't think that would reflect what they did particularly effectively, and could do some really massive things to battle mechanics. Full AP damage would make them insanely powerful, and I doubt that anyone's going to be coding a new "lesser AP" at 10-25%.

What could be done in a mod easily is a damage increase for weapons like battleaxes, warhammers, maces and so on, but even that could be tricky to balance. Although it might go some way to counteracting the fact that these weapons don't really do more damage than a sword and tend to have worse Att/Def values as well.

[Sombre]

If you start giving stuff like lances and longbows the AP tag, you're eroding the point of the tag in the first place, which is to differentiate weapons. Lances are not niche anti armour weapons in dom3, they are simply high damage weapons (which often makes them a good choice vs high prot units). A crossbow is a good choice vs armour, but much less of a good choice vs an unarmoured high hp unit, where you could be using shortbows, longbows, javs etc. It may not be completely realistic, but it makes for better gameplay and is intuitive.

You could mod maces etc to give secondary fatigue damage, but unless you make it something like AP rather than AN fatige damage and have a lowish value on it, they're going to be far too good against thugs etc. I don't want to see 20 peasants with clubs phasing a 28 prot cyclops just because they can't afford swords.

[Sombre]

Actually giving maces dmg 7 and AP might work to an extent. They'd be like the melee versons of crossbows - less good vs light prot guys, better against high prot guys. The fact they have worse att and def makes sense, since they are deployed against high prot encumbered guys, or heavy cav (who have good def but who shouldn't be taken out by mace armed foot troops anyway, really).

[Aezeal]

Well I'm not getting it, maces aren't armour piercing in any way right? (IRL I mean) so why would THEY get AP and not something that could actually penetrate armour even on specific weak points.

[Endoperez]

Actually giving maces dmg 7 and AP might work to an extent. They'd be like the melee versons of crossbows - less good vs light prot guys, better against high prot guys. The fact they have worse att and def makes sense, since they are deployed against high prot encumbered guys, or heavy cav (who have good def but who shouldn't be taken out by mace armed foot troops anyway, really).

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Maces are mostly used by the monkeys of all castes: Atavi, Vanara, Bandar, Kala-Mukha and leaders. Villains and Burgmeister Guards also use maces. They are pretty rare, but armor-piercing doesn't work with these units. Increased damage would be all right, I think.


Since the discussion changed into weapon balance, would you guys be interested in testing out this little mod I've been making? See attachment.

It started out as giving all magical spears #lance bonus, but I've been slowly adding into it and now it changes most mundane weapons. Most of it doesn't really make a difference, but Hammers (but not maces or clubs) are armor-piercing. They are used by VERY few units, which include few nationals (MA Ulm), Claymen and... Siege Golems! :shock: Haven't changed the golems yet, don't know if I should...

Other notable changes: +1 att to most spears, mauls, glaives, mauls and such have higher damage, many weapons cost less resources, axes got more precise.

[cleveland]

On the other hand, a Dom3 lance deals out quite enough damage to not need AP. A 25-protec thug without Awe staring at a line of charging cavalry should feel a large amount of trepidation.

Lances aren't quite as potent as you'd think. I ran some tests, reported in this post (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=654981&postcount=206), which showed that a Heavy Cavalry's Lance deals just 22 damage...certainly better than a spear, but nothing a 25-prot thug should really fear.

Even chain-mail infantry survive a Heavy Cav's Lance more often than not (17 prot).

[Omnirizon]

Well I'm not getting it, maces aren't armour piercing in any way right? (IRL I mean) so why would THEY get AP and not something that could actually penetrate armour even on specific weak points.

no i suppose they arn't piercing in the way we typically think of it, but it is the type of damage they do, blunt force trauma, that made them more effective than cutting weapons against armor.

[Lingchih]

Thanks for all the replies. This has, of course, gone way off post, but in a good way. I like all the lances and slingers talk.

Still. Nothing posted has deterred me from thinking that longbows should be AP.

[Horst F. JENS]

On the original question of armor penetration, I think it's really a Terminal Ballistics issue.

Neither the arrow nor bolt would be rotating (like a rifle bullet) so the longer arrow would be more subject to yawing & pitching than the bolt.

Actually, arrows (and bolts) are rotating. That's the reason you put the little feathers on the end of an arrow (usually 3 feathers for an arrow, 2 for an bolt). The feathers are slightly curved to give the projectile a spin in flight. This spin stabilize the flight.


As for armor-penetration, different arrow tips are used even today for different purpose. There exist hunting arrow tips (three or two razor-sharp bladed to cause flesh wounds), "sport" tips (cone) to penetrate (not too much) a target and blunt tips for bird hunting (stun rather then kill).

I have once seen historical special designed "armor-penetrating" arrows... those things had practically a pyramidal-shaped steel needle on it's top. Certainly not cheap or easy to produce.

Possible solution for Dom3 regarding armor-piercing longbowmen:


Create a new unit type "Elite Longbowmen" with armor-piercing longbows. Damage still lower than a crossbow but AP. Good stats, but more resource and gold cost than a "normal" longbowmen.


Off-topic fact:
bowmen used to urinate on the arrows to cause infected wounds.

[Agema]

On the other hand, a Dom3 lance deals out quite enough damage to not need AP. A 25-protec thug without Awe staring at a line of charging cavalry should feel a large amount of trepidation.

Lances aren't quite as potent as you'd think. I ran some tests, reported in this post (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=654981&postcount=206), which showed that a Heavy Cavalry's Lance deals just 22 damage...certainly better than a spear, but nothing a 25-prot thug should really fear.

Even chain-mail infantry survive a Heavy Cav's Lance more often than not (17 prot).

Fair enough. I've not run tests, but I've had cavalry knock a lot of HP off well-armoured thugs in games I've played: in one game one took 30 damage from 3 cavalry on first contact. Although I appreciate that may be unlucky.

[Gregstrom]

I have once seen historical special designed "armor-penetrating" arrows... those things had practically a pyramidal-shaped steel needle on it's top. Certainly not cheap or easy to produce.


You mean bodkin-heads? The cruder examples look a bit like a medieval nail with a socket at the base. I'm hardly an expert, but I'd have thought that the various barbed arrowheads would take more time to make.

[Sombre]

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Yes, sorry, I meant around 3-4 damage or so, as a weapon stat. I was mixed up with strength being 10 and 7 being less or something.

I don't see why hammers with AP make more sense than maces? Why doesn't ap on a mace make sense on a markata or hoburg?

[Endoperez]

What do you mean by "dmg 7"? Damage 7, no-str or the sum of strength and weapon damage being 7? I've changed hammers, but not maces/clubs, to be dmg -4 and armor-piercing. Details below.

Yes, sorry, I meant around 3-4 damage or so, as a weapon stat. I was mixed up with strength being 10 and 7 being less or something.

I don't see why hammers with AP make more sense than maces? Why doesn't ap on a mace make sense on a markata or hoburg?

I can't imagine Markata (they don't use maces), Hoburgs or the monkeys in general as something that thugs and heavily-armored, mounted knights should be especially afraid of. On the other hand, low-strength Hoburgs couldn't hit through armor even if their weapons were armor-piercing.

Finally, I don't want to make Lanka's Kala-mukha have armor-piercing weapons.

Thanks for asking about the hammers, since after you asked I read more about them and found out armor-piercing doesn't fit them at all.
I thought the spike at the other end of a war hammer was like a pick-axe, meant to push through the armor, but according to Wikipedia it was for hooking the opponent's leg, neck, weapon or such. It also didn't penetrate armor as such, but "transmitted an impact through even the thickest helmet". I've seen videos of a longer "poll-axe" being used in such a manner, and it looks great. Unfortunately you can't model tripping in Dominions.

[Horst F. JENS]

You mean bodkin-heads? The cruder examples look a bit like a medieval nail with a socket at the base. I'm hardly an expert, but I'd have thought that the various barbed arrowheads would take more time to make.


You are right. So bodkin arrows should cost less resource and do less damage than "normal" arrows, but bodkin arrows should be armor-piercing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point

[Agema]

I think the reflection of AP on weapons like axes, maces and so on is not that they penetrate the armour per se, but that armour could much less effective at stopping the damage from them compared to a sword. Armour was generally about stopping penetrative damage from thrusts (eg. spears, swords) and slashing (swords). Weapons like maces and warhammers were designed to apply a lot of force into a very concentrated area. Even if the armour wasn't penetrated (in the case of plate armour probably leaving a huge dent), the blow could pulverise bone and flesh under it.

[Aezeal]

well I don't think that is AP, that is just high damage since on an unarmoured person it would do much more damage too. (I'm not sure a well padded armour would give the wearer that much problems from a blow of a mace)

[Agema]

Chainmail might very effectively stop a sword slash - if the sword doesn't penetrate the links, it's effectiveness is greatly reduced - whereas a mace might crush whatever is below the mail. However, against an unarmoured target where the mace would still do lots of damage, the sword would cut a huge gash in the target. As the mace's relative effectiveness increases with more armour, it's more grounds to make it AP than higher damage. Although having argued that, I'd rather not see maces/warhammers with AP damage, more an increased damage, simply for game mechanics.

[Gregstrom]

I think it's more complicated than that. To the best of my knowledge, flexible armours (the various sorts of mail) weren't terribly good at stopping maces - even with padding (which was present as standard) a solid hit was likely to break bones. Rigid plate would be good protection, though. Full plate was not supposed even to dent, as dents would normally restrict the user's mobility.

Edit: Ninja'd! Dammit.

[chrispedersen]

I think it's more complicated than that. To the best of my knowledge, flexible armours (the various sorts of mail) weren't terribly good at stopping maces - even with padding (which was present as standard) a solid hit was likely to break bones. Rigid plate would be good protection, though. Full plate was not supposed even to dent, as dents would normally restrict the user's mobility.

Edit: Ninja'd! Dammit.

This is not true about the rigid plates. The end of the age of chivalry misnomer though that was.. was a combination of many things - including the fact that plate armor was actually remarkably poor against the kinetic energy transfer of flails, mauls etc.

[Gregstrom]

I think I should have said 'better' rather than 'good'.

[malthaussen]

Getting back to the OP's question, I wondered the same thing when I started playing the game. I figured both crossbows and longbows should be AP weapons. It appears, however, from information supplied in this thread, that if the idea is to represent RL weapons, neither should be AP. There doesn't seem to be any reason why one should be AP and the other not, unless it is for gaming reasons, and not simulation reasons. And since Dominions makes no pretence of being a simulation, that's probably all the reason needed.

I like the discussion of "blunt force trauma" and "kinetic energy transfer" and the like. I wonder what the reaction of your typical mediaeval knight would have been. Not only would he not understand the terms, he'd probably burn you at the stake for using them. Despite the efficacity or otherwise of various maces, hammers, flails, and ilk for defeating armor and causing damage to your opponent, all of these weapons remained pretty much auxiliary to the sword, whether the latter was more efficient or not. Should some of these weapons be AP and some not? Don't we first of all have to know what the designers intend by making weapons AP before we can answer that question?

Knights didn't fight knights if they could avoid it. A "good day" for your typical mounted thug, pace the chansons and their ilk, was to ride down and trample a bunch of hapless peasants, not engage in Irish Standdown with an opponent as well-armored and armed as yourself. This is why the pike caused such an uproar when it was first employed -- because for the first time, those hapless peasants could defeat the flower of chivalry. Yet I notice in the discussion above about weapons effectiveness, nobody talks about the pike, although it evolved into the standard battle arm for centuries. Should pikes be AP?

As for missile weapons, I see the progression this way: slings were good, cheap weapons that were effective at short ranges, but (as another poster points out) couldn't be used in masses and required a good bit of experience to be used effectively. Shortbows needed less experience, but were consequently not much more effective, if a bit longer-ranged. Longbowmen needed quite a lot of training, the weapon itself was expensive, but in mass it was very effective and long-ranged, so long as you had trained longbowmen. I recall one article I read somewhere-or-other (possibly S&T magazine) that speculates that a side effect of the Great Plague was to wipe out the pool of trained longbowmen for England and thus lose the Hundred Year's War for them. You can believe that one or not as you like. Crossbows didn't require as much training and were nearly as effective as longbows, which explains their vogue in the latter Middle Ages. Both kinds of bows were very good infantry killers, too, a fact that became more important as armies became more and more dominated by pikemen. What used to puzzle me was the vogue of gunpowder weapons once they were invented. Despite being expensive and unreliable, they became more and more popular as time went on. An arquebush or musket is no simpler to use than a crossbow (in fact, the latter is much simpler, not to mention tremendously more accurate), so why did firearms replace bows? Could it be that they were AP, and bows and crossbows not? A .75 cal bullet will punch through any armor without much problem, I should think. (Nevertheless, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the American army be armed with longbows, not muskets, since the former were not only much more accurate but had a much greater rate of fire. He ignored the fact that it is a lot easier to shoot a musket than a longbow)

Well, I suppose I've rambled enough here. Ultimately, I think there is only one real answer to the OP's question: crossbows are AP and longbows are not, because the designers wanted it that way.

-- Mal

[Agema]

The Black Death was around the beginning of the 100 Years' War, 1350, it wasn't a major influence on the final result around 1450. Ultimately, England lost simply because it was a far less wealthy and populous nation than France - it couldn't replace the casualties or pay for the endless conflict.

[Renojustin]

Geez guys:

A sling has 25 range and does 9 damage with -1 to attack.

A shortbow has 30 range with 10 damage.

A longbow has 40 range with 13 damage.

A crossbow has 35 range with 10 AP damage.

Duhhhhhhh!

[Endoperez]

Renojustin: most crossbows also have +1 precision IIRC.

That reminds me how my cousin and his friend were arguing about if a medieval person would have known what to do with a crossbow if he hadn't seen one before. Everyone would know what a bow is, one of them argued, but crossbows would be more rare and an average peasant wouldn't know what to do with it. His argument was countered by the following statement: "Crossbows are Simple in 3rd edition". :D :rolleyes:


Any way, while we are speaking of game stats, I like Conceptual Balance bows. Crude Short Bows are about equal, normal short bows are slightly more accurate, and more advanced bows/crossbows are better.
Speaking of mods, about a year ago Sombre helped me make a mod that gave all slingers a weapon that deals -2 damage, plus strength. It also increases the range to slightly over a short bow's range, but that's overkill, really. Strength of Giants boosting slingers' damage would be enough to give them a niche use. Would anyone be interested in seeing that mod updated?
Yet another mod-related thought: I should add a site with elite slingers to the magic site mod.

[Ironhawk]

Does no one here recall our short foray into AP longbows some time ago? Everyone clammored for it like this and then we modded it into CB or something and everyone hated it.

[Panpiper]

As I understand it, what causes the seeming discrepancy of crossbows being armor piercing while longbows are not while having longer range, is the fact that the crossbow bolts are heavier. The heaviness of crossbow bolts reduces their ability to stay aloft but at the same time gives them a greater impact, hence their ability to pierce armor. Longbows could indeed pierce armor, but they were also greatly helped at Agincourt by being fired from a higher elevation, so the extra drop lent them velocity.

[JimMorrison]

Speaking of mods, about a year ago Sombre helped me make a mod that gave all slingers a weapon that deals -2 damage, plus strength. It also increases the range to slightly over a short bow's range, but that's overkill, really. Strength of Giants boosting slingers' damage would be enough to give them a niche use. Would anyone be interested in seeing that mod updated?

STR-2 seems like an interesting tweak for Slings. Oddly, could have all kinds of fun with Longbows, simulating some of what has been discussed here, by giving them STR damage as well. Dunno, sounds fun. ;)

Too bad you couldn't Berserk the Slingers, that's just too funny an image to me.

Mmmmm, Elite Longbow, STR+0 weapon damage, 24 ammo and 2 attacks/round. :D

[Lingchih]

So, this means that longbows would have fired with much more force at close range? I'm not sure there is any way to mod that into the game, but it seems logical.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

What's up with all the LOLongbow fanboyism in these kind of games? The whole thing is just silly to me and serves no purpose.

I don't want to put anyone on the spot (and it would be mostly everybody) so I'll just address some (and later when they up ) of the points made without directly quoting anybody.

1)Longbows are more powerful.

No, they aren't and for quite a few reasons. Contrary to popular belief much of it has nothing to do with "force" at all but everything to do with consistency and human error. This point ties into other points so there is some overlap. But essentially the longbow is too RANDOM a weapon compared to the crossbow and the firearm. The first thing you have to understand is how arrows are launched from a longbow. The arrow is not directly across the belly of the bow perpendicular to the hand that drawing the bow but on the opposite side of bow from the hand. The arrow curves around bow as it is launched. Because if it was otherwise it would veer to the right (for a right handed person). But this in itself does not solve the problem. The arrow must be bendy enough to go around the belly of the bow otherwise it will veer left but not too bendy or it will go right again. And IF it strikes a balance it does not truly fly straight but rather "swims" in the air like a fish at a rave party.

This means several things. Once the arrow is not likely to truly hit a target straight on flapping in the air like a mad man and more likely to hit at an angle producing a glancing blow. It is also wasting energy while doing so. Thirldy, because the arrow must be bendy even if it does hit dead on it is likely to buckle which increases the period of time it impacts and in turn lessen its power. And this is assuming the arrow and the bow are PERFECT for each other.

Nowadays with the advent of the Plunger Button and the arrow rest to minimize this effect along with computer modeling and superior materials bows can be much improved but even then it ain't perfect.

Now imagine medieval bows made from imperfect varient materials matched with flawed arrows. The problems stated above are then GREATLY exacerbated.

But what about Crossbows?

They don't have this problem. At all. It has nothing to do with power either. It's how the projectile leaves the weapon. The bolt is shot along the tiller and therefore flys straight with a minor vertical lift a the beginning. Because of this the bolt need only be strong enough to withstand being launched by the crossbow and therefore is much more tolerant of human error in its making. Bolts then do not wiggle and are stronger for it. Also many types are metal cored for instance unlike war arrows where the "tang" the back end is short which makes them quite stout. This means each impact is succint and true relative to the fickle arrow. Because of this as long as you get the draw weight the same crossbows are easier to standardize and made even more consistent because you eliminate the factors from suspect ammunition and the method of launching a projectile is relatively simple.

2) Bu-bu-bu what about Bodkins?

LOL. An arrowhead with the purpose to aid armor piercing is not a new and magical concept the English pulled out of their rear ends. "Armor piercing" arrows have been around since Roman times and probably before that. And just because it says armor piercing on the label so to speak doesn't mean it's the best ever. The Everlasting Gobstopper much to my chagrin is not everlasting nor has it ever stopped unruly Gobs. The Bodkin was mostly made for economic reasons and often out of a crappy iron that would shatter on impact. Most of the up to date longbow fanboys have dropped the bodkin in favor of a kind of arrowhead called a type 17 which funnily enough looks like a scaled down broadhead arrow made out of steel.

3) Longbows are expensive.

Incorrect. A decent longbow was approx 4 shillings back in the day. The Franklin social class from which the classic English longbowman were culled from made about 6 shillings a week which was enough to buy a good chunk of grain or a pig. So if a guy wanted to buy one all he had to do was abstain from porkbutt for a week and he could get his own. The crappiest crossbow you could get was approximently 24 shillings. A real good one was 200+ shillings and the "wynche" to reload it could be just as much depending upon where you lived because it is rare that crossbows are made by one person and often needed multiple people who needed to be paid. Such a weapon could not be issued unless the King was willing to subsidize the costs or the soldiers were loaded themselves. The longbow was adopted because they were broke as a joke hence the need to run around and steal other people's crap. It had gotten so bad only one wynch could be afforded for every 5 soldiers. And even then crossbows were still used in limited numbers which is a testament to their efficacy. One need only look at some of the old paintings to see that the English used whatever they got their hands on. The modern English are probably more biased to longbows than their medieval counterparts.

4) Crossbows are for n00bs and rabble.

WRONG. Consider the modern gun. So easy to use a child can do it...and they do. But generally it's not the best idea to round up a bunch a kids, give them guns, and drop them on the battlefield and expect to own everyone. Professional soldiers knowing what the hell they are doing will do better. An easier weapon does not mean a crappier weapon. The advantage is that you can do so IF YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO. That's an important distinction.

Also as I mentioned the things cost a lot of money. You would NOT give them by default to some peasant boob because it is likely worth more than their miserable life.

5) Longbows are for the 133t only.

Bzzzt. Wrong. There was nothing special about them...in any way. Bows are everywhere in many cultures. It is also not that hard to pull one back. Despite what you hear about heavy draw weights since you use your whole body with a proper form and using your back it is not that hard at all. Similar to how bench press weights are much higher than one can curl for instance because of the kind of muscle and number of muscles you use. There was nothing extreme about their training as they could only really do it on Sunday and other nations used similar systems including no restrictions on hunting to encourage the populace to practice. In fact the English longbow is only really distinct in how much worse it is because it is a round bow as opposed to flatbow like the original Welsh longbow. The round bow is cheaper and easier to make but it's force distribution is poor and ultimately less powerful than a good flatbow with LESS draw weight. It also has worse hand shock which means it's more inaccurate.

There are other points but I don't want my first post to be too long.

[vfb]

I think it's fair to postulate that you are biased in favor of machine guns.

[Agema]

1&2) I'm not sure anyone argued that longbows are more powerful or more penetrating than crossbows, most people who have stated an opinion agreed crossbows were. Longbows were certainly more powerful than your average bow.

3) All medieval weaponry was mix and match, obviously the English would have some crossbows. However, if you want to suggest the longbow was just about money, I'd request evidence. The battlefield doctrine of massed longbows suggests is was viewed as a battle winner in its own right, not just an alternative way to sling a few missiles.

4) People have said a crossbowman needed little training to fire his weapon well, but that does not mean they thought crossbowmen were usually ignorant rabble.

5) No. Fully drawing most bows, including modern sporting longbows, can be readily accomplished by a healthy adult. A brief google tells me they have draw weights of about 200N, which would equate to lifting 20kg if my rusty physics serves me well. An English/Welsh longbow had a draw weight maybe 600N (60kg) or more. Now also think about doing that 6-10 times a minute for a few minutes - it's not easy. Sure, flatbows were better (the cheap and easy manufacture of English longbows has also been mentioned before). But so what?

* * *

"Longbow fanboy" suggests you think some people have some ideological or emotional investment in supporting longbows, and I don't think anyone here does. They were superb weapons, and some people may freely wonder whether they might be underpowered in the game without being referred to as "fanboys".

[JimMorrison]

What's up with all the LOLongbow fanboyism in these kind of games? The whole thing is just silly to me and serves no purpose.

I don't want to put anyone on the spot (and it would be mostly everybody) so I'll just address some (and later when they up ) of the points made without directly quoting anybody.

...

There are other points but I don't want my first post to be too long.


So, you cruise around the internet, looking for unjust comparisons between the longbow and the crossbow, so that you can smite the wrong-thinking multitudes of a far flung future? You're the crossbow crusader?

Or I suppose the entire thing could have been an elaborate and cheesy introduction that you improvised. If so, bravo! No one introduces themselves with so much drama and excitement anymore, they're all too scared to hurt someone's feelings. :happy:

[Tifone]

Aaah, this crossbow-fanboyism these days... :D

[Sombre]

So, you cruise around the internet, looking for unjust comparisons between the longbow and the crossbow, so that you can smite the wrong-thinking multitudes of a far flung future? You're the crossbow crusader?

Or I suppose the entire thing could have been an elaborate and cheesy introduction that you improvised. If so, bravo! No one introduces themselves with so much drama and excitement anymore, they're all too scared to hurt someone's feelings. :happy:

I don't see how it's elaborate or cheesy. He was just being comprehensive.

Seems like he just browses the forums here and saw a thread of personal interest, disagreed with what was being said and wanted to set the record straight.

Of course coming in with the term "LOLongbow fanboys" doesn't exactly identify him as anyone you'd want to pay attention to.

[Thierry]

Hello, here's a viewpoint from the other side of the hundred years war, i.e. a french point of view.

This discussion is very interesting, specially applied to our most beloved game.

I don't claim to be a specialist or autorithy on historical matters, but it's a subject that interest me and I read a lot about it...

Factors not taken into account into DOM III :
- In dom3 you're playing a bit like a modern monarch or dictator. In that view, the french army was far more 'medieval' than the english one. Cohesion was low and the king or its marechal had few control over most of the troops. That can have dramatical impact
- Knights : france had far more knights than england and it was assumed that superior knight force means ensured victory. In fact it was those same knights that caused the first major french disastor. Eager to proove themselves and loots bounties and ransom, they attacked against the king order and without any plan or cohesion... The french king wanted its troop to fight only the next day, with a global plan, but wasn't obeyed. They attacked without waiting, in complete disordered waves.. When the french (italian in fact, from Genes) arbalest guy got routed, the same knights charged them, considering them traitors, adding to the confusion.
- Against that, Eduard III was in far better control of his troops and could apply a good overall plan. Generally it's considered he was a very apt tactician.
- Crossbow vs bow ? Well in DOM3 crossbow fires every other turn, vs every turn for bow. Reality seems that bows fired 6 to 12 arrow per minutes, while crossbow managed only 4. So the rate of fire could be 1 against 3. Add to that it add rained and the ropes of crossbow and arrows were not made of the same stuff : the crossbow one was far less resistant to water.
At Crecy the crossbow guy were sent already tired while entering battle (see knights charging up there) (encumberance of crossbow ?) and their armor had not arrived.. they went unprotected.
- Is the bow superior ? Well crossbow got banned by the church. Because of it's efficience ! The opinion I forged through various sources (I admit it's an opinion !) is that crossbow is more powerfull, more precise that the longbow. But it's far more exepensive, fires less often, and is also less suited to be used in mass. Anyone played 'fire the flag' with indirect fire with bows ? In war you're not targeting someone with the bow / crossbow. It's more a 'saturation' fire. In that crossbow was no more efficient. But, to protect a castle with a small garrison, a crossbow is far more usefull : it's more skirmish fight with few guys and you can target someone. There I guess crossbow is AP, more precise and you get more time to reload while being protected... On the field, I doubt crossbow is AP and as efficient...

Dom3 :
- Make some knights berserk !
- Add tactical advantages for great leaders. Not only + moral, but att / def ?
- More diverse maps, so that you can have shock points, etc.. A choice to fight now in bad conditions, or wait for better one with the risk of having your adversary flee (in crecy the english were trying to get back to england IHMO and french was pursuier).
- Crossbow should be less usefull in large maps, but more in castle assault or small engagment
- You don't have complete control of troops. Well in dom3 you get mad tartarians, a bit like french knights ?

[Sombre]

Dom3 :
- Make some knights berserk !
- Add tactical advantages for great leaders. Not only + moral, but att / def ?
- More diverse maps, so that you can have shock points, etc.. A choice to fight now in bad conditions, or wait for better one with the risk of having your adversary flee (in crecy the english were trying to get back to england IHMO and french was pursuier).
- Crossbow should be less usefull in large maps, but more in castle assault or small engagment
- You don't have complete control of troops. Well in dom3 you get mad tartarians, a bit like french knights ?

You have no chance that any of that will be implemented.

A mod could easily be made to make knights berserk (though I wouldn't use it) and I guess insanity or shattered soul could be given to various military commanders (which no-one uses anyway) but that would be an exercise in micro more than anything else.

[Thierry]

Something I learned while checking this topic : the long bow should be considered as a cousin of the composite bow.

True, it's made of only one piece of wood... But the piece of wood that was taken was cut among different layer of the tree, running through the core to the exterior skin (yew ; other trees were less efficient), acting a bit like composite bows. Without the problem of the rain going against the glue !

It seems it took one day to build one. Compare that to composite bow or crossbow ! The rope accounting for half the price (sometimes in silk)

In a way the yew long bow was a bit like a giant, rainproof, composite bow.

[Thierry]

Originaly posted by Sombre :

>You have no chance that any of that will be implemented.

>A mod could easily be made to make knights berserk (though I >wouldn't use it) and I guess insanity or shattered soul could >be given to various military commanders (which no-one uses >anyway) but that would be an exercise in micro more than >anything else.

I have to learn to quote :)

Just curious why you wouldn't want knights to be made berserk ? Suits the medieval mentality, no ? In a way, Knights are irregular. Heavy Cavalry should behave as trained army corp. But knights are more elite but untrained to fight in groups or obey orders ?

I would like to have a real general unit in the game. Maybe add bonus when the pretender or prophet leads the army (so that you don't have a general in every stack) ?

[thejeff]

Yeah, except berserk works as much more of an advantage in the game. Berserk knights won't retreat even when the rest of the army does. And considering knights are tough already, could win fights even after the rest of the army has routed.

To simulate what you're suggesting, you'd really want an effect that made knights ignore the scripts they're assigned. Charging at once instead of holding, not attacking the rear, etc. An interesting idea, especially if it was only a chance, but much harder to implement. It would require entirely new code.

[vfb]

Bah! Don't you get enough of that already with mage scripts? :P

Knights with the 'berserker' attribute would charge into battle if they received damage and passed their morale berserk check, even if they were supposed to Guard Commander or whatever.

The extra fatigue from being berserk is kind of bad.

[Agema]

Knights varied a lot in terms of discipline. Some, particularly the religious orders (e.g. Templars, Hospitallers) were generally disciplined professionals.

The idea of charging without due care and attention was an eternal problem for any army. It wasn't just some of the more hotheaded troops like knights and Scottish highlanders, but it also happened to some degree with professional armies such as that of the Byzantines.

[Sombre]

Berserk in dom3 terms = a morale 99 guy that doesn't autorout, can punch through awe/repel, wins battles after the automatic rout turn limit etc. It's suitable for fictional norse berserkers or whoever, but not impetuous knight.

An #impetuous tag which emulates only the 'charge and ignore all orders' part of berserk would be ok for certain units. But it's not going to happen.

[Tifone]

I think the fact that my knights often ignore my "Hold and attack REAR! I said REAR! The commanders! The mages!!" to charge the first line of enemy infantry. sounds pretty much similar to what you want... and it's already implemented!! :D

[Thierry]

I realise you're right.

I wasn't looking at this as an advantage for the knights. The idea of having 'rash' or 'hothead' troops seems fun still. It would make all the difference between, say, Hoplites, Roman legions or templars on the one side and barbarian hordes on the other side of the scale. Maybe an idea for Dom 4 ?

So maybee we lack a 'discipline' characteristics in troops ?

Does madness work on non commander troops ? It could work ?

I remember reading of one battle between french and english (french were winning of course ;b) where rumors started on the filed that the french 'train' (treasure ?) was left unprotected. The english troops rushed there, followed by the french one and everyone started looting with no consideration of nationality...

By the way, did not the berserker (bear seeker ?) in nordish tales die at the end of the fight from exhaustion. Either that or he triy to kill its comrades ?

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

1&2) I'm not sure anyone argued that longbows are more powerful or more penetrating than crossbows, most people who have stated an opinion agreed crossbows were. Longbows were certainly more powerful than your average bow.

You might want to check the OP again.

3) All medieval weaponry was mix and match, obviously the English would have some crossbows. However, if you want to suggest the longbow was just about money, I'd request evidence. The battlefield doctrine of massed longbows suggests is was viewed as a battle winner in its own right, not just an alternative way to sling a few missiles.

Simple logic would show you that it is unlikely that longbows would be chosen because of this so called "battlefield doctrine." First of all you have to understand that longbows were everywhere and they are very very old. Found in India, Africa, the Americas and were used by Vikings even before Wales. To assume that everyone didn't know what one was and ignored this supposedly awesome weapon is to assume that everyone including England were a bunch of...goobers. Secondly, to claim that it is a battle winner is dubious. One need only look forward in time during the imperialistic ambitions of European nations such as Britain at the Battle of Assaye where they went against old school Indian longbowman with so called "slow weapons with little trainings" and soundly womped them over and over and over again. This is DESPITE the so called awesomeness of the longbow and DESPITE the fact the Europeans were armored in nothing but a goofy BRIGHTLY colored uniform with a silly hat. If the longbow was that awesome that would not happen. If you want to look at the period itself you only need to explore some battles other than the same two which are spammed on the internet ad nauseum which are too hampered by outside factors. Patay where the longbowman outnumbered the French knights and despite being their PEW PEW PEW powers couldn't do jack diddly and got their English booties kicked. Or the battle of Constance where xbowman tore them a new one when they weren't hampered by idiotic French leadership. Or the Hussite Crusades who's angry religous fantatic Xbow and gunman scared the English mercenary commander so bad he fled to the clergy and never returned to the battlefield...ever...again.

4) People have said a crossbowman needed little training to fire his weapon well, but that does not mean they thought crossbowmen were usually ignorant rabble.

Again the OP and you just implied it right here. LOL. I'm pretty sure I tried to stress "easier" and not "little training to fire well." First of all to be pedantic you don't "Fire" a bow, cross or otherwise, because no "fire" is involved like in firearm. Secondly, while they could shoot it they wouldn't do it what I would call "well." A crossbow itself could weigh up to 25 pounds. If you were not trained you wouldn't even be able to hold it level.

5) No. Fully drawing most bows, including modern sporting longbows, can be readily accomplished by a healthy adult. A brief google tells me they have draw weights of about 200N, which would equate to lifting 20kg if my rusty physics serves me well. An English/Welsh longbow had a draw weight maybe 600N (60kg) or more. Now also think about doing that 6-10 times a minute for a few minutes - it's not easy. Sure, flatbows were better (the cheap and easy manufacture of English longbows has also been mentioned before). But so what?

The rate of shooting is something that is the MAXED out element and no one would do that for the same reason no one would spray all their bullets like...well...Machinegun Joe from Deathrace. It is not difficult. It is not special. You saw these kind of archers everywhere. If they were as difficult as some people make them sound on the internets this would not be the case. As for last statement I find it amusing how you claimed there was no evidence for longbow cost above but answered your own question here. If they didn't need the dough they could have spent more cash on making a less poopy longbow. Since they didn't is a pretty good indicator that every coin was important.

* * *

"Longbow fanboy" suggests you think some people have some ideological or emotional investment in supporting longbows, and I don't think anyone here does. They were superb weapons, and some people may freely wonder whether they might be underpowered in the game without being referred to as "fanboys".

What else could there be but "emotional investment" when someone is trying to pump up their value within a strategy game? Instead of the same generic Mickey Mouse history discussion that occurs on any game, movie, pencil and paper RPG set remotely in this time period actual figures from battles within the game should be discussed to suggest parity. I also noticed you tried to sneak in a "superb" in there. No. There's nothing special about them. A bow is a bow is a bow. There is no magic that makes longbows "stronger" than other bows although there characteristics that define it simply calling them "superb" is highly deceptive.

Edit:
I've seen the megathread on Somethingawful and have perused the forums, yes. I saw this thread and it is a litmus test of mind when judging a fantasy game. I've found that games with good range weapon parity tend to be good overall while games full of Longbow fanboyism tend to be crap.

[Gregstrom]

I'm just waiting for Bogus, a knight on a winged steed, and a pair of wizards to turn up now.

[Agema]

Ah, trolltastic!


You might want to check the OP again.

Yes, quite right. There's all of one other post agreeing from my quick check, for the grand total of two, out of all posters in this topic. And yet you've started a huge rant about longbow fanboys. You might want to check the prevailing arguments, not go off half-cocked about one comment.

I will quickly pop through the traces of intellectual meat to your last post: your waffle about various battles isn't really relevant, for the obvious reasons like morale, surprise attacks, tactics and so on also applying. re. longbow costs, "lowest bidder" rules applied then as now, I suspect. I note you consistently avoided my points on the different draw weight of Welsh/English war longbows compared other bows and longbows. Ho hum.

First of all to be pedantic you don't "Fire" a bow, cross or otherwise, because no "fire" is involved like in firearm.

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

What else could there be but "emotional investment" when someone is trying to pump up their value within a strategy game? Instead of the same generic Mickey Mouse history discussion that occurs on any game...

I think you have an emotional investment in being anti-longbow, which explains your attitude and your exhaustive yet very factually and logically limited two posts. Everyone else here is very calm about it all.

A bow is a bow is a bow

Wow. I guess then a gun is a gun is a gun. Musket, assault rifle, shotgun, what's the difference?

[cleveland]

A missile is a missile.

I'll stick with ICBMs, thank you very much.


:sucks:

[Redeyes]

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

[rdonj]

Are you guys really going to sit here and argue about the definition of the word "fire"? It is fairly obvious what was meant by the term fire, and using historically correct terminology to describe the action of firing/shooting/loosing/releasing/flinging/beatingwithastick an arrow is fairly irrelevant to the conversation and understanding what is being said in this thread. One might even argue that it would be more correct to use more modern terminology as it would be more readily understood in common conversation. So please, go back to flaming each other for slightly less silly reasons.

[JimMorrison]

There's nothing special about them. A bow is a bow is a bow. There is no magic that makes longbows "stronger" than other bows although there characteristics that define it simply calling them "superb" is highly deceptive.


Since obviously all bows are the same, I completely see your point now. I made bows out of switchgrass and kite string when I was a kid, and man did they SUCK, erego the longbow must be awful. It couldn't kill a man at 10 feet, unarmored!

I was under the impression that the attraction of the -Long Bow- was the incredible distance that it could be fired. You did use them en mass, and because of arced volley fire, you did not actually aim, you just lobbed as many arrows at someone as possible, before they were close enough to even do anything about it.

The crossbow on the other hand, was probably more effective, in its own effective range. However, with a lower rate of fire, you are relying more on intentionally aimed shots, and thus you must be in range to fire directly, rather than using arced volleys.


Honestly, mister Gun, I do believe that you are such a rabid protector of the honor of the crossbow, for the simple fact that it is almost a gun - and therefore must be superior to the barbaric weapons that existed previously.

[KissBlade]

I think we should tone down the namecalling/flaming on either side because I actually find the discussion otherwise, pretty nifty. =)

[Lingchih]

Yeah, I agree. I kind of wish I had never started the thread, but I have learned some history lessons. And, I have changed my mind. Longbows should not be AP. Except perhaps for some special units.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Ah, trolltastic!

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.


Yes, quite right. There's all of one other post agreeing from my quick check, for the grand total of two, out of all posters in this topic. And yet you've started a huge rant about longbow fanboys. You might want to check the prevailing arguments, not go off half-cocked about one comment.

I was making a general statement because I didn't want to go off on specific people to cut down on the mass quoting (at the start anyway). I wrote something to that effect and there's other points too that I'll bring up as the come up so my huge rant is in totally even more huge than the one you see now.

I will quickly pop through the traces of intellectual meat to your last post: your waffle about various battles isn't really relevant, for the obvious reasons like morale, surprise attacks, tactics and so on also applying. re. longbow costs, "lowest bidder" rules applied then as now, I suspect. I note you consistently avoided my points on the different draw weight of Welsh/English war longbows compared other bows and longbows. Ho hum.

Then your statement of the bows being "battle winning" is therefore overally ambitious and somewhat deceptive and I don't know why you are getting angry at me for? Have you not essentially admit you were in the wrong here? I'm sorry I don't get your meaning.

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

The lowest bidder rule doesn't apply because you talking about a royal decree and not a modern capitalistic democracy.


Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong? :D


I think you have an emotional investment in being anti-longbow, which explains your attitude and your exhaustive yet very factually and logically limited two posts. Everyone else here is very calm about it all.

Well you certainly seem to be calm right now. I'm perfectly monk-like over here myself. Well maybe one of those twinkly eyed mischevious monks but pretty monk-like overall.


Wow. I guess then a gun is a gun is a gun. Musket, assault rifle, shotgun, what's the difference?

Well, I believe you have selectively quoted there and misunderstood me. A longbow by itself tells you nothing. A 20 pound draw longbow isn't the same as a 100 pound plus composite bow to give an obvious example. I did say that there some characteristics that define it. An example is that the longer bow is easier on your limbs because of reduced hand shock. But the nature of the bow is the same in that you are using limbs as a spring to launch a missle and is human powered. Your example is incorrect because guns can differ in principle mechanically. The longbow get's nothing that makes it better just by being a longbow.

@JimMorrison:
I clarified what I wrote above. Arced volley shooting isn't a feature it is a necessity to gain distance. You cannot choose to arc because there is no varient way to draw a hand bow. You reminded me of an additional point

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

[rdonj]

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

Is anyone here actually arguing that strong bows aren't found everywhere? I don't recall that being the case.

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths.

Or that the person with the longbow is releasing the shot at a different angle to achieve a different trajectory and reach?

[vfb]

...

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

So, for example, if you were at the Battle of Hastings, and you were told to shoot over the shield wall and ensure victory for the Normans, you'd be like, "Sorry dude, I can't arc."

[KissBlade]

Obviously there are situations where the longbow proves it's mettle as opposed to times when it does not. However, history is written by the victors and for the most part, the British Empire wrote most of the history. Since the longbow was seen as one of it's pride, it's no surprise that it achieves it's fame in strategy guides. =)

[Sombre]

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong? :D

Well then sorry to be pedantic, but you're wrong.

Believe it or not lexicographers know what they're doing. Language doesn't change on 'whims' and the definition isn't wrong, it's modern. Then again your definition of wrong appears to be 'not what I think'. If you expect everyone to use the definitions of words you personally believe rather than the ones in, say, the dictionary, I think you have an uphill battle on your hands.

[Sombre]

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

The fact that it's defined as such in the Cambridge dictionary means people already use the language this way. That's how dictionaries work. They record and define usage, they don't direct it. If you look up 'loose' you'll find a definition relating to firing arrows also.

[Agema]

It's also acceptable to use "fire" with respect to bows in the Oxford English Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary (two of the three most-used British dictionaries) and, I think, Merriam-Webster.

* * *

I don't support the "because they were cheap" argument for one main reason: I don't think it adequately explains the adoption of massed bowfire as a tactic itself. I think that requires military commanders seeing how a weapon can be used and adapting to it. In the ancient and medieval eras, massed bowfire was common in Eastern militaries, but the further west into Europe you got, the more the ethos was melee: archery was generally about softening up or harassing an opponent prior to the real action. That the English used such mass deployment of archers suggests a tactical doctrine at variance with not just their own history, but the prevailing cultural habits of Western Europe. Thus they would have to have weapon to make that doctrinal change viable.

This is why I suggest the English longbow is a "battle winner" - it was a weapon you could heavily base your army on, not that it meant proper scouting, logistics, good morale, disciplined troops and decent generalship became less necessary. It could fulfill this role because weaker bows could not fire an arrow far enough and or with enough penetration, whereas crossbows that had the range and power fired too slowly. Yes, I think it *was* a superb weapon; the many victories accomplished with it should be some testament to its effectiveness.

Strong bows with huge draw weights are indeed worldwide. However, that doesn't mean it's easy and anyone plucked from the general populace could do it without practice: they would largely have been specialised hunters and the like. Producing tens of thousands of such archers available for warfare is a different matter. Longbows vary, well, yes this has been agreed. In that sense you'd be right that there was nothing very special about longbows generically. However, to do so would also mask the fact that the Welsh/English version was much more powerful than your average longbow. At which point, we'd be asking instead "Which longbow does the game mean?"

[Thierry]

Rarely is a weapon a 'war winner' by itself. In 100d war, it's not the bow by itself wich won battles. But its efficient use, i.e. trained bowman (see how it was done in england), tactics and learning how your adversary thinks (see why french knight were decimated), using the landscape (forest, protection or defending a chock point). On other set up or use, your mighty bowmen would avail to nothing.

What about a fight between horse archers and 'static' longbowmen ? Being charged on a dry plain instead of a drenched soil ? Or turned by light cavalry ?

At one time the most efficient weapon was the military pike, largely used by switzerland/swiss federation. Yet was the pike by itself a superior weapon ? It has its case of use, like most other weapons...

From what I gathered, crossbows were deadly, more accurate and dangerous than the longbow. Every european nations used them, most in countries were the noble cast was less in power. After all being killed by a rufian while you're a knight is not glorious. So many crossbow mercenary were italian (Genoa). One kind of crossbow was outlawed by the church because it was too efficient. (The one you draw/arm with your feet instead of a winch).

Funily enough, in England the rufian hero is Robin Hood, with a bow, while for the swiss I think its Guillaume/Whilelm Tell with a crossbow :) (In France it's Thierry La Fronde, 'La Fronde' stands for 'sling', his weapon. I don't want to restart on bow vs sling, I know nothing of slings !!! Even if I share his firstname (for reasons.. thanks TV !))

So why do see so many reports of longbow being so efficient in war ? Crossbow were far more expensive, heavy and had a far less fire rate. The troop was slower, harder to use and didn't deliver as much a punch while large archer formations managed 'saturation fire' at time. They were very efficient in some settings (castle, small troops, 'hand weapon' for travelers, etc..) Hence their use by all major european nations, england included. By they were not effecient in a masse battle, loosing to the bow.

English longbow were notorious because they were technically superior to other european countrie's bow, and mainly because the training and drafting of the archer was really above. It turned to France copying the organisation and forming 'Archers francs' companies, trained professionals. I heard that Churchill 'V' for victory hand sign comes from this time : the english archer showing that they still had their two fingers to draw the bow, while the french threatened to cut it on any prisonneer :D This alone shows how efficient those guys were !

->
Oh by the way, can someon from (or learned in) Asia tell us how crossbow were used in asia ? In my old RPG time, we had 'repetition' crossbow :) It is (supposed to be) an Chinese invention ?

As for me I'm confortable with having crossbow AP and bow not. It hads variety to the game and different strategies :)

[Gandalf Parker]

Mandatory Warning:
If you feel this is a worthy discussion which should continue then please make a strong effort to discuss the subject and NOT discuss each other. Personal attacks of any type will close a thread and possibly remove it entirely.

[Sombre]

The repeating crossbow was used in ancient china, yes. I don't think any accounts of its effectiveness are available though.

[Thierry]

The repeating crossbow was used in ancient china, yes. I don't think any accounts of its effectiveness are available though.

Okay I knew nothing of chinese warfare. After some searsh, it seems crossbow was used at least around 500 BC in china. It lead to various improvings, probably meaning that it was usefull. Interestingly, it seems it was a weapon of choice for close defence. Chinese crossbows seems to have a better 'latch' system, not counting the repeatable ones. That could explain this (you could keep it loaded)

Tien Chin should definitively have crossbows :)

I seem to remember reading Judge Ti novels that he or his assistants used crossbows. It's also in a french serie on china, but that's a more dubious source ('Ivory Puppet' if it was ever translated in English)

And Ermor / Pythium should have Scorpions or other crossbow like machine of war. Usefull for siege, but maybe for battle too (against elephants ?)


EDIT : Hey there's a book on comparison of crossbow vs long bow !
http://books.google.fr/books?id=xCDK0twV82MC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=crossbow+protection+close&source=bl&ots=lUmTyxs9RD&sig=lDti1m6Mq4zRQLKVkE13VWJnJ4o&hl=fr&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA22,M1

From this very interesting book you learn that the 'long bow reign' ranges from 1298 (Falkirk) to 1550 where hand-gun were far more efficient in warfare. Also it should be noted that various kind of crossbows were used (until hand-guns replaced them also), and that we should compare long bow to steel crossbow, the ones used at the same period.

[Aezeal]

hmmm Thierry, very nice of you to tell us what we should compare but could you maybe tell us the general conclusion we could deduce from that book too then?

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

...

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

So, for example, if you were at the Battle of Hastings, and you were told to shoot over the shield wall and ensure victory for the Normans, you'd be like, "Sorry dude, I can't arc."

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

@Sombre.

Lol at lexicographers knowing what they're doing. Have you heard about words like "acorn" being removed from the Oxford Junior dictionary? Sorry the definition is still wrong, but that is not your fault so this isn't a flame. Security smiley incoming. :D


I don't support the "because they were cheap" argument for one main reason: I don't think it adequately explains the adoption of massed bowfire as a tactic itself. I think that requires military commanders seeing how a weapon can be used and adapting to it. In the ancient and medieval eras, massed bowfire was common in Eastern militaries, but the further west into Europe you got, the more the ethos was melee: archery was generally about softening up or harassing an opponent prior to the real action. That the English used such mass deployment of archers suggests a tactical doctrine at variance with not just their own history, but the prevailing cultural habits of Western Europe. Thus they would have to have weapon to make that doctrinal change viable.

They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

This is why I suggest the English longbow is a "battle winner" - it was a weapon you could heavily base your army on, not that it meant proper scouting, logistics, good morale, disciplined troops and decent generalship became less necessary. It could fulfill this role because weaker bows could not fire an arrow far enough and or with enough penetration, whereas crossbows that had the range and power fired too slowly. Yes, I think it *was* a superb weapon; the many victories accomplished with it should be some testament to its effectiveness.

To prove this you would have to prove that what the English have accomplished could not have been done otherwise without the longbow. The longbow's power is inflated simply because the strategies of the French were poor. Poor enough when at Morlaix when they didn't even use them they still won with basically what amounted to traps and pointy sticks. When the French gain cohesion and focus later on, they fell apart.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles. Recalling my good discussion with my buddy at the top of my post remember what I said about bow arcing. Imagine a longbowman standing behind his fellow longbowman. The longbow because it is...long cannot be shot from a crouched/prone position in the manner of crossbow/firearm. So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Strong bows with huge draw weights are indeed worldwide. However, that doesn't mean it's easy and anyone plucked from the general populace could do it without practice: they would largely have been specialised hunters and the like. Producing tens of thousands of such archers available for warfare is a different matter. Longbows vary, well, yes this has been agreed. In that sense you'd be right that there was nothing very special about longbows generically. However, to do so would also mask the fact that the Welsh/English version was much more powerful than your average longbow. At which point, we'd be asking instead "Which longbow does the game mean?"

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has. And it isn't that difficult. There is no special Englishness that let's them engage in the kind of martial archery practice that happened elsewhere. Average longbows of that strength are found in old Viking burial sites. The weapon is really really old.

Edit: Oh yeah a couple more things. The V thing is pure apocrypha. To pull a warbow you need three-four fingers. So there is no significance in two. Longbowman would not likely be bothered to be ransomed back in the first place and so they would have dead so it didn't matter how many fingers they had left. Churchill lied his rear end off about a whole lot of things and admitted it too.

And the church ban didn't do anything since the pope at the time was weak.

[Sombre]

@Sombre.

Lol at lexicographers knowing what they're doing. Have you heard about words like "acorn" being removed from the Oxford Junior dictionary? Sorry the definition is still wrong, but that is not your fault so this isn't a flame. Security smiley incoming. :D

I work at OUP. There's certainly been some hysteria in the media about words being removed, but it is extremely skewed. Probably because they have an audience to pander to and because the truth is less interesting. Still, rather than bleating what you read in a poorly researched article about the Junior Dictionary eroding the language, maybe you should check the facts for yourself.

The Junior Dictionary is designed for very young children, as an introduction to dictionaries. They are expected to already know the majority of the words in the book, adding to their sense of security and familiarity when using it. Clearly the dictionary also has a limit on the number of words it contains. So when the vocabulary of young children changes, as it does constantly, the dictionary must change to reflect this. It isn't like 'monarch', 'bishop', 'acorn, 'psalm' etc were left out as an oversight due to stupidity, or were removed as political correctness gone mad, or because the researchers at OUP Reference division wanted to exert thought control over the next generation. It's an accurate (according to a team of professional linguistic researchers, as opposed to say, you) portrayal of the vocabulary and language needs of very young children in england.

If you look at a list of all the hundreds of words removed and added and you choose a handful selectively based on your political or 'logical' agenda, you can 'prove' just about whatever you want. I would think this was obvious.

For the last time - dictionaries do not DRIVE language, they merely represent and define it. The definition could be inaccurate due to an error somewhere in the process, but since they are representing modern language usage a definition cannot be 'wrong' if it accurately portrays the current use. Which 'fire' for loosing arrows certainly does. Regarding the Junior dictionary, if very young children aren't using pulpit, acorn, psalm etc that's hardly the fault of OUP. We just record it. If your argument is that you know more about the state of language and how to construct a dictionary than the researchers at OUP, then wow. Enjoy your fantasy land.

It's pretty clear now you're a troll, which I will blame you for, because it is your fault. Even so you could at least try to get things halfway correct. That way you wouldn't get 'pwn3d' like a 'n00b' every time you open your mouth. 'LOL :D'

[vfb]

Machingun Fail (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDEO6sPdJI)

Obligatory :D

[JimMorrison]

I thought everyone wanted Joe to post a lot. :happy:

[Endoperez]

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.


They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

...restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.




So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.


Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.

[Renojustin]

Cavalry kills infantry.
Infantry kills bowmen.
Bowmen kill cavalry.

Warsong, for Sega Genesis, rock-paper-scissors system.

[chrispedersen]

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.


6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

This is just poppycock.
It was common military practice in the medieval ages to

a). Mark out spacings around castles as markers so bowmen and artillery knew how hard to pull for the effective range.

b). It was often done to fire same at *less* than full strength to deceive your opponent as to the maxiumum range of your pieces.

According to your argument that each bow had a specific "sweet spot". Nonsense. If you are saying that a bow had to be pulled with 40 lbs of strength - Imagine how hard it would be to match each bowman to each bow.

It is much rather true that each bow had a *Wide* range of acceptable pull strengths. And generally, the harder you pulled it the farther the arror flies.

Competitions in the middle ages were held at various distances, with some at more than 1000 feet.

Other points:
While crossbows did have the ability for a moderate amount of ascenscion- they had essentially no ability for declension.

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

Saying things is rocks scissors paper is a little misleading - yes, after a time systems and tactics develop to compensate for a new weapon.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

@Sombre

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect. :D

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.

Unless it has been patched is it not true in this game where crossbows will shoot the backs of troops they are behind of while arrows will go over? That's what I'm referring to. Both bows and crossbows are limited by constant force because a bow has to be balanced to it's anchor and pulled the same way every time. The difference is , is that crossbows do not allow for the same degree of human error because the string always rests on the "nut" (the part that rolls over when the trigger is pulled). While with a bow that spot is inconsistently reached especially in the heat of battle.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

Due to the money situation they were more or less forced into a position regardless yes I mentioned this a while back too. But what was necessary for England at the time does not equate to an absolute optimal decision in general. Also there is a misconception with rate of shooting . The simple reason is that when you consider all the negative factors effecting the quality per arrow of the longbow this number is not as significant as it may seem at first glance.

Given the poor leadership of their enemies at the time I do not feel a massed archer strategy was necessary and in the long run it was a hindrance.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

Well the purpose of a historical discussion in a game forum, to be on topic, is to gain insight and what is right for ingame mechanics.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.

Alternating shooting is present in multiple pictures of the period such as in German usage books and in Froissart's manuscripts. It's a described technique in the ancient Chinese military. The descriptions of the "streams" are present in the wars of Charles VIII in Sweden and the Hussite Crusades. I can't name any specific books for the moment as it's been quite a while. Like everyone else here I'm simply casually sharing.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.

I know that but extreme high angle shots would be...unwise as you risk raking your own ranks. You would gain distance and then at some point get closer however that "closer" area could be hit with a direct shot in any case. And again training goes only so far when you consider the fickleness of the weapon. Imagine an expert marksmen using a modern firearm and each shot has a different character. Is it possible for his training to overcome it when he cannot predict how each shot will behave? Perhaps to a degree. But now flip it on it's head. Is it possible to train an expert marksman in the first place with such a weapon? I would say...not really. No longbow volley could be cohesive enough to hit even a blob with the same amount of cohesion of other weapons.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.

The longbow was a major part of India for a long long time. And I already mentioned Assaye and the not good things that happened to those guys. You wouldn't see an "army" (and I'm assuming you mean some quantifiable number greater than "huge amount") because it wasn't really a good idea. The ultimate failures of such a system become evident when they you know...lost horribly. The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry (obviously much latter in history).


This is just poppycock.
It was common military practice in the medieval ages to

a). Mark out spacings around castles as markers so bowmen and artillery knew how hard to pull for the effective range.

b). It was often done to fire same at *less* than full strength to deceive your opponent as to the maxiumum range of your pieces.

According to your argument that each bow had a specific "sweet spot". Nonsense. If you are saying that a bow had to be pulled with 40 lbs of strength - Imagine how hard it would be to match each bowman to each bow.

It is much rather true that each bow had a *Wide* range of acceptable pull strengths. And generally, the harder you pulled it the farther the arror flies.

Competitions in the middle ages were held at various distances, with some at more than 1000 feet.

Bows DO have an anchor. You can't overdraw a bow or you damage it. And if you underdraw it they arrow won't even fly straight not to mention even if it did it would be significantly weaker. Yes precisely it is HARD to balance each bow. This is why such a weapon in that time period is inherently INCONSISTENT.

Other points:
While crossbows did have the ability for a moderate amount of ascenscion- they had essentially no ability for declension.

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

Saying things is rocks scissors paper is a little misleading - yes, after a time systems and tactics develop to compensate for a new weapon.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

LOL you are vastly overestimating the rate of shooting for a bow as well as their possible accuracy.

And can you clarify what you said about crossbow "declension" I do not get your meaning.

The longbow was NOT an "amazing and groundbreaking development" because it is neither amazing nor groundbreaking since in that time period the weapon was already old as dirt.

[Endoperez]

Unless it has been patched is it not true in this game where crossbows will shoot the backs of troops they are behind of while arrows will go over? That's what I'm referring to.

To my knowledge, this has never been the case, and I've played since the first Dominions game. Arrows, crossbow bolts, sling bullets, javelins and fire bolts cast by wizards will all arc the same way, given they hit the same place in the ground. They only differ in range and precision.

I might write answer to the rest of your post later.



Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

I don't believe anyone can fire 5 unaimed arrows in two seconds. It's probably possible to have the five arrows in the air at the same time, though. I agree that crossbow is much slower, but I can't believe any bow being that fast.


I also agree with MGJT in regards to the fact that longbow itself isn't an English invention, and not new by that time. He's commented on it already, but longbows have existed for thousands of years. They had varying draw strengths, of course. I found a few mentions of something called "African elephant bow", but couldn't find a time for it. I did find an image of a girl who had killed an elephant with a single arrow, but her bow was a modern, adjustable hunting bow.

I liked the other parts of your post, but without sources, your points will just be ignored by MGJT.

[Sombre]

When young children are referring to "magical pebbles that grow trees" I'll hold you to what you said. How am I troll? I prefaced that factoid with an inference that I was intentionally being silly which is why I'm not badgering people about it when they use it elsewhere. And it is still true that "fire" is not the appropriate term. It is still incorrect. :D

Well I'm not trying to convince you, believe me. Especially after that stupid response. Since it's been demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, it's cool for you to continue. No-one with any sense will listen.

It also now appears you've never even played dominions. You couldn't possibly be a troll :rolleyes:

[Incabulos]

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

To my knowledge, this has never been the case, and I've played since the first Dominions game. Arrows, crossbow bolts, sling bullets, javelins and fire bolts cast by wizards will all arc the same way, given they hit the same place in the ground. They only differ in range and precision.

I might write answer to the rest of your post later.



Well it looks like Dominions might be passing my Fantasy game test. I know several people have painted me with the "emotional crossbow crusading fanboy troll burger" (say that 5 times fast) brush but all I'm looking for is some kind of parity in my games. Of course I'm still deciding. With a pricy grognard game like this I need to make sure it is right for me.

Well I'm not trying to convince you, believe me. Especially after that stupid response. Since it's been demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about, it's cool for you to continue. No-one with any sense will listen.

It also now appears you've never even played dominions. You couldn't possibly be a troll

I made it clear in my first post that I never played Dominions. I saw all the Goons on Somethingawful praise it to high heaven. So I begin my mystic journey and I peruse the forum and see this topic. I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll. It was not my intent for you fly into ten orbits after you were corrected on what I said was a silly aside in the first place. I hope all that fresh air from zooming around was invigorating. I was cooped up in the God house reading free verse Bible poetry listening to some rapper talking on a..on a..whatchamacallit all day. ;)


@Incabulos

There are different shows on the History Channel that come to different conclusions. Twelve is way too high. Even if that were the case generally arrows are not carried in numbers greater than 20 in the case of foot archers since packing them tight would crush the fletchings. In other words they would spray out in two minutes and waste a great deal of down time getting porters to refill them dropping the average way down. Crossbowman/Gunman could carry more ammo on their person.

The archers despite flat outnumbering the French horse scouts at Patay could not replicate their success. With a focused charge their horse killing expertise leaves much to be desired as well it seems.

[Endoperez]

I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll.

I agree with some of the points you made, but you look like a troll and speak like a troll. Even if it wasn't your intention, your opinion goes against everyone else, you can't give direct links to any sources and you haven't even bothered to try out the demo of the game whose mechanics you are debating. Not to mention that you only registered to take part in this discussion. Unfortunately my junior English dictionary (with pictures!) didn't have the definition of a troll, I'm forced to call you "an internet person who cannot agree with anyone else on anything" instead. :D



Why could a crossbowman carry more ammo than a longbowman? Wouldn't the bolts' fletching be ruined about as easily?

I've found few mentions of crossbows not being able to arc (e.g. in Final Fantasy Tactics: bows can arc, crossbows/guns can't), and about Chinese using line-fighting with crossbows. So your crossbow facts seem to be all right. Unfortunately, it's hard to find longbow facts that someone who doesn't believe the common knowledge would accept as a fact. I'd have to find someone who doubted longbow's usefulness, researched, and changed his mind.

[Sombre]

I made it clear in my first post that I never played Dominions. I saw all the Goons on Somethingawful praise it to high heaven. So I begin my mystic journey and I peruse the forum and see this topic. I think, "Oh how fortunate I get to see if my 'Fantasy game test' applies here." But instead of a unit comparison it's the same ol discussion seen anywhere on these game forums in this time period on this subject with the same sticky problems involved. I am not a troll. To troll one has to have an intent to troll. It was not my intent for you fly into ten orbits after you were corrected on what I said was a silly aside in the first place. I hope all that fresh air from zooming around was invigorating. I was cooped up in the God house reading free verse Bible poetry listening to some rapper talking on a..on a..whatchamacallit all day. ;)

Since you want to be treated like you still don't get it, I'll break it down for you. Read slowly and carefully.

OJD - 6,000 headwords, designed for 7 year olds, primarily containing words that are in a 7 year old's active vocabulary.

Comprehensive dictionary - roughly 500,000 headwords, for adults such as yourself(?), authoritative. Useful for looking up words you don't know. Perhaps you should switch to this big boy dictionary if you're having so much trouble with the OJD.

You don't know what you're talking about, can't admit it and keep posting 'you're wrong' to provoke a response. That's trolling. It was funny at first but you aren't coming up with anything new, so I won't mention it again.

[Thilock_Dominus]

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F

About Troll

The Vulgar Troll. These, the crudest of all trolls, make no attempt to hide their species. Often, they make racist comments, or they may post porn and other spam. Vulgars usually confine their comments merely to primitive, profane, off-topic observations. When you log into the Really Profound Serious Philosophical Discussions board and see the post, "I smell my farts," you've spotted the Vulgar Troll. Other species of troll sometimes revert to this form when cornered.

The Deceptive or "Classic" Troll. More sophisticated but often easily identified and exposed, the Classic Troll gratifies his ego by pretending to be someone or something he or she is not. Classics make up elaborate stories about themselves, sometimes weaving some amounts of truth into their lies. As a web of lies is difficult to build with consistency, however, Classics are often "outed" by other forumites. When this happens, Classic Trolls have a bag of tricks to which they turn:

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 1: If the heat gets too much for you, claim it was all "a joke." In this way you can excuse any and all deceit by claiming people just weren't smart enough to "get" the humor of it.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 2: Create another account, and log on pretending to be someone else, in order to show support for the Troll in Question (TiQ). These puppet accounts sometimes claim to be disinterested third parties. At other times they pretend to be "friends" of the TiQ.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 3: When your lies paint you into a corner, claim that your little brother, or some unnamed friend, has commandeered your account and made you look foolish. This technique can also be applied in claiming that the puppet account(s) you created may not, in fact, be disinterested third parties or friends, but that they are your relatives ("little brother" is most common) only trying to help support you.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 4: When nothing else works, claim that now, finally, you're telling the truth about all the lies you told before. Make up a fresh set of lies, and throw yourself on the mercy of the forumites.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 5: When all else fails, claim to be leaving forever. Trolls who claim they are leaving never do, of course; you can bet that anyone who proclaims, "I'm never coming back here," will most certainly at least check back for responses, and probably will not be able to resist posting again.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 6: Have a tantrum. When all their other tricks are exhausted, Classic Trolls will become angry and start shouting. Often they revert to Vulgar Trolls when this happens.

– Classic Troll Tactic Number 7: The insincere apology. Similar to Tactic 4, this involves pretending to repent for one's trolling and is accompanied often by great melodrama. Insincere troll apologists hope that they'll be forgiven if only they act disgusted enough with their own behavior.

The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

The YerATroll. YerATrolls are those whining forumites who devote a tremendous amount of time and energy complaining about the tremendous amount of time an energy expended by Troll Bashers and Angry Forumites on the practice of troll-hunting. A self-righteous and hypocritical breed, YerATrolls spend all their time pointing fingers at everyone but trolls, petulantly demanding that their opinions be granted the significance the YerATroll believes they deserve. YerATrolls often start threads excoriating others for troll-hunting, all the while completely oblivious to the fact that they're engaging in trolling by picking fights with everyone else. One of the most ill-tempered of troll species, YerATrolls are characterized by a childish need for attention disguised as cynical nobility and pretensions of being "above it all."

The Agenda Troll. Agenda trolls are those participants who join a forum specifically to pursue an agenda of their own – often a feud or grudge with another member, or perhaps a dispute with some party not participating in that forum. When a flame war erupts on another board, for example, Agenda Trolls will follow their opponents to other forums in order to continue the spat.

– Some Agenda Trolls are subject-matter oriented. An Agenda Troll who thinks Self-Defense Instructor X is a fraud, or who feels he has been ripped off or otherwise dealt with unfairly by Instructor X, will visit forums devoted to self-defense and martial arts in order to spread his or her negative opinion of Instructor X.

– Agenda Trolls may also be of the milder Spam Agenda subspecies; these are Trolls who join a board specifically to advertise some venture of their own. They are not often troublesome, though their shameless plugging is met with varying degrees of irritation.

The Sophist Troll. Sophist Trolls, or "philotrolls," fancy themselves Enlightened Philosophers or Learned Experts of the highest order. Often well educated, Philotrolls are capable of speaking intelligently on a number of topics, and when the spirit moves them they can be worthwhile forum participants. Unfortunately, Sophist Trolls are an extremely hostile and intolerant species.

When confronted by opinions with which they do not agree – particularly when they do not see any means of successfully arguing their contrary views – Sophists resort (repeatedly) to a variety of intellectually dishonest tactics. Most often, this is characterized by an overly snide, condescending, patronizing attitude. Philotrolls consider anyone with whom they do not agree to be "immature," and are fond of quoting that old saw that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

When cornered they are quick to resort to personal attacks. A philotroll's bag of rhetorical tricks includes a variety of transparent ploys, such as willfully misinterpreting the opponent's words, committing Straw Man fallacies, accusing his or her opponents of engaging in the very tactics used by the philotroll, and so forth.

When engaging in their sophistry, philotrolls are among the most hypocritical and aggravating of trollkind.

The Affected Profundity Troll. A mutant subspecies of Sophist Trolls, Affected Profundity Trolls post endless pages of pretentious drivel that is intended to appear wise, but which generally makes little sense (if any). Affected Profundity Trolls enjoy asking themselves questions, sometimes answering them and sometimes leaving them hanging, for they believe this looks intelligent and lends an aura of mystery to their incoherent ramblings. Affected Profundity Trolls aspire to become Sophist Trolls, but lack the intelligence necessary to make the leap.

The Don King Troll. Related to Affected Profundity Trolls, Don King Trolls spout gibberish in the hope that they'll either bore or confuse to death those with whom they disagree. The average Don King Troll is "a pursuitist who gromulates his adversarial computerists with height defining formulations to the disinterestingest adjunct."

The Artistic Troll. A higher species of Classic Troll, Artistic Trolls are intelligent individuals who understand the subtle art of trolling, and who do what they do specifically to make others look foolish. Often employing the techniques of Deceptive Trolls, Artistics will string forumites along until some point in time designated by their own desires, at which point they will reveal the ploy, admit that it was a ploy, and laugh at everyone for being stupid enough to fall for it. Artistic Trolls delight in sowing discord, but do it in a highly developed and fully aware manner. They do not care if they are despised, and do not seek the approval of forum participants. Chaos is their only goal, and preferably chaos with a humorous bent to it. Without a doubt, this is the most dangerous species.

The Bitter Troll. Bitter Trolls are a curious cross-species. They can be trolls of any breed in their larval stages, but become Bitters after their previous activities are seen for what they were. What sets these trolls apart from other classifications is their behavior after they have been spotted and labeled as trolls. Angry, frustrated, and resentful about being "outed," the Bitter Troll will wage a campaign of indignant complaints intended to focus attention away from the troll and on whomever is responsible for identifying the creature. Often, a troll mutates into a Bitter just prior to becoming a Vulgar.

The Bustr. Bustrs are obsessive Bitters by whom you could practically set your watch. A Bustr never forgets, never forgives, and holds a grudge until the day it dies. Also a variant of Agenda trolls, Bustrs typically move from forum to forum complaining about the objects of their ire, often cutting and pasting age-old diatribes that have little meaning to most of their audiences. Most Bustrs are relatively incoherent, though a few of the more lucid ones are potentially dangerous stalkers.

The Mutt. Alternatively known as Dogs or Yapping Dogs. Mutts are pack animals characterized by their loud barking – vociferous, repetitive, usually ignorant and irrational criticism of anything and anyone they do not like. Mutts frequently become obsessed with a few or even a single poster with whom they disagree, often for purely personal reasons. Like a dog gnawing at a bone, the Mutt will attack the object of its ire over and over again, making a fool of itself in the eyes of those who understand such childish behavior for what it is. Often one Mutt in a group of Yapping Dogs will act as the alpha of the pack, while the others chime in to voice their mindless (but loud) support for their leader's opinions.

The Holy Misroller (HM). Holy Misrollers are those online forum participants who give Christians (or other religious adherents) a bad name. The HM believes himself or herself to be a Christian (etc.) and will generally tell anyone who'll listen about his or her faith in God and in Jesus. At the same time, however, the HM will display decidedly un-Christian behavior, frequently making an *** out of him- or herself. The HM is often characterized by a great deal of anger and hostility. The breed tends to lash out at anyone and anything not in keeping with its incorrectly narrow worldview. The saddest part about HMs is that they do not truly understand Christianity at all.

The Marketing Genius. A Marketing Genius is absolutely convinced that you are profiting from your participation in an Internet forum. If you have a link or a graphic block in you signature, the Marketing Genius just knows that this is your subtle attempt to assert your hypnotic powers on other bulletin board participants, luring them with the siren song of your complex and inscrutable advertising of your site. It does not matter to the Marketing Genius that forum members have been placing links and pictures in their signatures since the ability to do so was first created. Having never created anything of value themselves, Marketing Geniuses have only their bitter envy and their firm belief that you are a Dot Com Billionaire to motivate and occupy them.

The Honorable Nitwit. Honorable Nitwits absolutely love to speak about honor. This breed invokes the concepts of honor, integrity, humility, and other traits straight from the Boy Scout Oath more often than a Klingon warrior on anti-depressants. Honorable nitwits are convinced that everyone around them suffers from a lack of honor – an idea they thoroughly fail to understand in attempting to use its lack to smear others.

The Old Warrior. The Old Warrior has been there and done that. He has little time to spare for those who have not been there and done that. The Old Warrior has been there and done that to such an extent, in fact, that he is always right. Anyone who disagrees with him, therefore, is wrong by definition and should shut the hell up. Old Warriors place a very high premium on one's credentials relevant to the subject matter discussed – failing to understand the logical fallacy of appeals to authority.

The Forum Cultist. Forum cultists are extremely proud of the incredible Internet communities to which they belong. They pride themselves on the exclusivity of those communities and actually believe that "it can't happen to them" – "it," of course, being their own banishment. Forum cultists place a very high premium on groupthink and generally react to differing opinions with outrage, banning all who dare to speak them.

[Agema]

The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry

Er, do you have a problem with the English or British?

Firstly, you seem determined to not just deny any credit to them for use of the longbow, but to make out they were cheap, and only won battles because the French were incompetent.

Now you're making bizarre accusations that they repeatedly get "stuck" using old and inefficient technologies and practices. On what grounds would you argue they were any worse than any other race nation? How do you explain they were and still are near the front of technological advancement since about 1700?

* * *

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but...

Worldwide the average power for bows of all designs is about 220 newtons (50 pounds) at 70 cm (28 inches) of draw which is suitable for most hunting applications. Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful, with the most powerful bows being the English longbow and the African elephant bow, both of which topped the 900 N (200-pound) at 80 cm (32 inches) mark.

This is the point. It's not that longbows are worldwide and strong bows are worldwide. It that bows - of any sort - with draw weights of an English longbow were very rare as battlefield weapons. Getting thousands of men who can pull a 220N bow effectively is a very different matter from getting thousands who can pull an 600-900N bow.

I maintain that extra weight a) made the bows much more effective and b) that it required the sort of training the English king compelled on his subjects. Which makes the English longbow not just your average bow fired by your average archer.

[Humakty]

I must say the most powerfull bow in history is not the english (wales in fact) longbow, but the indian one. It was much less precise however, as it was used by an archer lying on his back.

As a french, I must say our noble knights ultimately understood that they needed not to expose themselves to ennemy fire too much, and finaly got rid of the many english tourists that weren't willing to go back to their ill-climated homeland, even after the legal expiration of their visas.

[Agema]

Hey, by percentage battles won of those fought, since the fall of the Roman Empire the French have the most successful military in Europe. A few blips against longbow-wielding English are neither here nor there. :)

[Gregstrom]

That was Quite Interesting :D

[Agema]

You find out all sorts of great things watching TV. ;)

The right TV programs, anyway. :p

[Humakty]

I didn't knew that, anyway during the last century we've been trying hard to lower those stats, they don't fit with our natural sense of Modesty.

[Meglobob]

Heh, Agema read your private messages, if you have not done so already!

Sorry to interrupt the discussion!

[sum1lost]

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

For what it is worth- Drawing a full longbow is incredibly muscle intensive. Firing at the max rate of fire was only possible for a minute or two before even the most comptent bowmen gave out. Realistically, after the initial volley most bowmen would pace themselves to a much slower rate of fire- faster than a crossbow, but not to the point of firing every few seconds.

On top of that, any archer who fired at the speed people have been describing would empty his quiver within minutes. The most arrows I have ever read of an archer carrying was 60, and that was in multiple quivers, and they were smaller arrows for a horsebow. (Marco Polo's decription of a mongolian warrior)

[Incabulos]

accounts of Crecy describe porters continually bringing arrows from the supply lines.

It also described that a ferocious rate was only needed for the first charge. The resulting field of long arrows and crippled horses etc meant the second charge was much less of a threat.

A barrier of dead horses was actually achieved. Of course Crecy is an example of where the longbow really shined, and was put to great tactical use. The terrain forced a difficult charge and approach from a single direction.

In modern tests they did show that it wasn't until the last 1/4 of a charge (when the knights were almost at the base of the hill) that the arrows penetrated armor. The first 1/4 of the charge and almost no arrows hit even the horse. The last 1/4 of the charge almost all the arrows would hit. The targets looked like hedgehogs.\\they also timed the charge to cover the field and it took 40 seconds. That is an awful long time to be under fire from that many longbows. Crossbows simply would not have been as effective.

Seems to me crossbows would excel at taking down slower moving heavily armoured infantry.

[Lingchih]

Heh, join a game MachineGun. Would like to have you in the game.

[Endoperez]

Heh, join a game MachineGun. Would like to have you in the game.

Perhaps as MA/LA Marignon? Hordes of crossbowmen boosted with Flaming Arrows, perhaps Wind Guide later on, protected by a small screen of infantry. Preferably shielded, to protect from friendly fire.

In fact, MA Marignon vs MA Man would be an interesting matchup. Marignon has crossbowmen, decent infantry and good cavalry, and the inquisition+Paladins and the comment in the manual imply that it's inspired by Spain with some French influence. Man is English/Britain, with longbowmen, elite mounted and unmounted knights, and worse normal infantry.

Inquisition versus the witches of Avalon makes for even funnier matchup.

[Incabulos]

'Burn the witch!'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MONKS: [chanting]
Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
[bonk]
Pie Iesu domine,...
[bonk]
...dona eis requiem.
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!
[bonk]
A witch! A witch!
MONKS: [chanting]
Pie Iesu domine...
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?

CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.

WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]

CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?
ARTHUR:
I am Arthur, King of the Britons.
BEDEVERE:
My liege!
ARTHUR:
Good Sir Knight, will you come with me to Camelot and join us at the Round Table?
BEDEVERE:
My liege! I would be honored.
ARTHUR:
What is your name?
BEDEVERE:
'Bedevere', my liege.
ARTHUR:
Then I dub you 'Sir Bedevere, Knight of the Round Table'.

[JimMorrison]

This is the best thread ever.

Even if I didn't find myself described in that Troll List..... < sniff >

[Lingchih]

This is the best thread ever.

Even if I didn't find myself described in that Troll List..... < sniff >

Thank you. I started the "best thread ever". I am honored.

Now, please make it stop.

Though a youtube link to the Monty Python bit would be better than the transcript.

[chrispedersen]

Heh, join a game MachineGun. Would like to have you in the game.

Perhaps as MA/LA Marignon? Hordes of crossbowmen boosted with Flaming Arrows, perhaps Wind Guide later on, protected by a small screen of infantry. Preferably shielded, to protect from friendly fire.

In fact, MA Marignon vs MA Man would be an interesting matchup. Marignon has crossbowmen, decent infantry and good cavalry, and the inquisition+Paladins and the comment in the manual imply that it's inspired by Spain with some French influence. Man is English/Britain, with longbowmen, elite mounted and unmounted knights, and worse normal infantry.

Inquisition versus the witches of Avalon makes for even funnier matchup.

You forgot the best weapon of marignon. Flagellants.

[Incabulos]

I posted that from work.. nyet to youtube. But you are right, the timing and voices aren't done justice by the transcript.

[JimMorrison]

I still say that machineguns are superior to longbow, despite the victories of the English.

[Dragar]

Seeing as the longbow/crossbow discussion is petering out, surely its time for someone to bring up the old katana vs western sword chestnut?

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

I agree with some of the points you made, but you look like a troll and speak like a troll. Even if it wasn't your intention, your opinion goes against everyone else, you can't give direct links to any sources and you haven't even bothered to try out the demo of the game whose mechanics you are debating. Not to mention that you only registered to take part in this discussion. Unfortunately my junior English dictionary (with pictures!) didn't have the definition of a troll, I'm forced to call you "an internet person who cannot agree with anyone else on anything" instead. :D

Well looking at Thilock Dominus' list I can see how I fit parts of certain profiles, Contrarion and Agenda, made me blush a bit. But I have not done any different than any other poster sharing what they know. I did not notice many dropping down the hardcore literary works and I don't have a problem with that but I don't feel that what I have been saying has been that alien. I think part of the problem is that some of you take section of things you've heard about their battles that have been...romanced up and you make inferences about mechanics. I'm taking what non-expert knowledge I have about bow mechanics and combining them with the same non-expert knowledge on somewhat lesser known battles. I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.

Plus some of the things I thought should have been easy to look up. Take what I said about arrows and the devices that modern times have come up to help us with them. Take a look at this archery site that explains how to adjust the plunger button and "tune" your arrows.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-arcus.com/nuoliviritys.htm

Look at the little diagram. Remember where I said the arrow was against the bow? See how the arrow is wiggling on its node points? Look at all the complicated steps you need to take to make sure it's a good arrow and then adjusting the plunger. Doing the test again with and without fletchings. See the grouping. I think the site mentions that's at a mere 7 seven meters. That distance becomes even more awful at "need to kill a man range." And this is WITH a modern bow. WITH modern arrows. WITH high-tech materials And WITH devices like a plunger to make you sure you get it right.

Now go back and look at medieval times. How could they know even a smidgen of what we know now? Imagine the quality control with the need to crank out all those arrows. Would they all test them like that? Did they even have the tools to do so? Even if they could would they?

And that's just the weapon itself. Look at what must be done with actually shooting it.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-arcus.com/tekniikka.htm

Look at the steps. The need to stand in the proper posture. The need to hold the bow correctly. Here's a sentence in the very beginning that stands out.

"
The shooting with a bow consists of an unbreakable chain of different operational acts which are executed million and again million times the same way."

That sounds familiar...;)

Look at the anchor. I forgot completely about the need to maintain vertical sameness much less the same draw distance. Look at how utterly minuscule the differences is to mess up your sighting and your aiming.

Now imagine trying to do all of this while someone is trying to kill you. It makes more sense to me to consider longbowmen as still "men" and not stone cold archery robots. Which is what you'd have to be to do this the "same way" especially in combat. This is why I inwardly groan when people talk about their "training." Longbowmen practicing on Sunday does not turn them into those robots anymore than me shooting cans off the fence (on Sunday) makes me into John Rambo. In real combat I would shoot much worse and my pants would be filled with a not insignificant amount of poo.

Why could a crossbowman carry more ammo than a longbowman? Wouldn't the bolts' fletching be ruined about as easily?

Several reasons. One they tend to be more compact and so they can easier be reached from multiple packs on your person. Charles VIII of Sweden's xbowmen had something around 7 dozen of these quarrels this way. I believe archers of all kinds tend to wear their ammo on a hip. A longbow arrow is...well long and trying to extend you arm way up to pull it from it's quiver from many angles is going to be...very awkward compared to a quarrel. Also some bolts depending on their usage did not bother with fletchings at all. An arrow without fletchings will behave much much worse compared to a quarrel without one. Quarrels are also therefore are more tolerant of different materials. Since the projectile sits on a tiller the fletchings aren't going to contact the bow in the same way an arrow would and could therefore use much stronger and stiffer materials.

I've found few mentions of crossbows not being able to arc (e.g. in Final Fantasy Tactics: bows can arc, crossbows/guns can't), and about Chinese using line-fighting with crossbows. So your crossbow facts seem to be all right. Unfortunately, it's hard to find longbow facts that someone who doesn't believe the common knowledge would accept as a fact. I'd have to find someone who doubted longbow's usefulness, researched, and changed his mind.

Well the internet absorbed so much pro-longbow stuff since the usenet days it's difficult to find. When I tried to scrounge up something on the battles I mentioned I found this blog.

http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/longbow-the-final/

He mentions Constance (which I mentioned a while back) here as well as Nogent . But do an experiment. Look up Mauron which is mentioned but ultimately an English success. It comes up easy. Try looking up the Battle of Nogent and Constance. Notice it's not so easy. That's not a coincidence. He also tears Robert Hardy a new one who I dislike as well for those two reasons and more. Look at some of the things you've been digging up on longbows on the net. You'll see his name A LOT. I know many of you cry shock and horror about my insinuations of "longbow fanboyism" but the bias on the Internets is quite real.


Er, do you have a problem with the English or British?

Firstly, you seem determined to not just deny any credit to them for use of the longbow, but to make out they were cheap, and only won battles because the French were incompetent.

Now you're making bizarre accusations that they repeatedly get "stuck" using old and inefficient technologies and practices. On what grounds would you argue they were any worse than any other race nation? How do you explain they were and still are near the front of technological advancement since about 1700?

No, I mentioned them kicking butt at Assaye did I not? The longbow isn't "theirs" because it's everywhere. The longbow literally sat next them the whole time in Wales. To suspect that they just noticed this "awesome" weapon very LATE to the party is much more of an insult to them. When the French were competent and focused they won handily. When they weren't they lost.

England falls into those traps like other nations do. China is the biggest example. They get set in their ways and caught in a loop. Making the longbow edict turned it into a part of their culture. They were as reluctant to leave it regardless of merit. It is simply something that has happened before. That is all.

The wiki article is very ...misleading to put it lightly. I might use "wrong" but certain individuals can get prickly with that word. :D It seems to mention modern average bow weight plus the key sentence there is suitable for hunting. "Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful" and then it mentions two examples. Longbows were not ahead of the curve in any capacity.

@Incabulos:

Porters would have slowed down the overall process. And again the crossbow is a much more cohesive weapon. Focusing on the front ranks of a charge would hamper/trip other horseman. Jan Zizka fended off charges with crossbows all the time and never lost a battle. French scouts which meant that their horses would not be piled up with armor stomped the longbowmen at Patay.

@Lingchih:

I haven't gotten the game yet. When I come into some money I'm sure you will stomp a mudhole in me regardless of weapon as I will be quite the n00b.

@Endoperez:
Sounds like marignon is clearly the superior faction. ;)

[Tifone]

Seeing as the longbow/crossbow discussion is petering out, surely its time for someone to bring up the old katana vs western sword chestnut?

I'm in as soon as we get into the Alien vs Predator one :D

[Endoperez]

I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.

Early Age doesn't have any crossbows, I think. If any nation has them, it'd be Tien Chi, the "chinese" faction. Longbows are also pretty rare in EA, although I think one of the demo nations (Kailasa, inspired by India) has them.

The "shooting in the back" happens when the enemy forces run away and your own units try to catch up with them. Imagine 60 crossbows aiming at the three retreating militias from halfway across the battlefield, and wounding or even killing several of your own infantry who had almost caught up with them.

It can also happen with bows, of course.

[rdonj]

That was a pretty good post MachinGun, informative and calm, this is a post I can appreciate :)

Well looking at Thilock Dominus' list I can see how I fit parts of certain profiles, Contrarion and Agenda, made me blush a bit. But I have not done any different than any other poster sharing what they know. I did not notice many dropping down the hardcore literary works and I don't have a problem with that but I don't feel that what I have been saying has been that alien. I think part of the problem is that some of you take section of things you've heard about their battles that have been...romanced up and you make inferences about mechanics. I'm taking what non-expert knowledge I have about bow mechanics and combining them with the same non-expert knowledge on somewhat lesser known battles. I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.


I don't know where you were reading that, but you are most certainly talking about Agartha. I don't remember for sure when they get crossbows, but I think they have them in all ages other than early. You missed all the crossbows, as they do not appear at all in the early age. There are a select few who do get them in MA though. I'm pretty sure no nation gets a full selection from all the different types of ranged weapons in one era. For example MA or LA T'ien Ch'i gets Composite Bows and Crossbows, whereas for example LA Man gets Longbows and Crossbows. In EA most nations have only shortbows, slings and javelins, while T'ien Ch'i for example always has crossbows. In case you'd be interested in a rundown, human nations rate their weapons from slings to short bows, then composite bows, then longbows, then crossbows. There is also a heavy crossbow that does a bit more damage but fires slower. And to more directly address what you were talking about, the poster was probably referring to Agarthans poor eyesight causing them to take a lot of friendly fire. Archery tends to cause a lot of friendly fire in Dominions, and Agarthans are even worse because they have low precision. Every ranged weapon is capable of shooting over other units though.

Plus some of the things I thought should have been easy to look up. Take what I said about arrows and the devices that modern times have come up to help us with them. Take a look at this archery site that explains how to adjust the plunger button and "tune" your arrows.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-ar...oliviritys.htm

Look at the little diagram. Remember where I said the arrow was against the bow? See how the arrow is wiggling on its node points? Look at all the complicated steps you need to take to make sure it's a good arrow and then adjusting the plunger. Doing the test again with and without fletchings. See the grouping. I think the site mentions that's at a mere 7 seven meters. That distance becomes even more awful at "need to kill a man range." And this is WITH a modern bow. WITH modern arrows. WITH high-tech materials And WITH devices like a plunger to make you sure you get it right.

Okay, that site you linked made my brain bleed, I'm sorry. I just could not force myself to read through it, it was too painful. I do want to say though that I've done a bit of amateur archery, and it isn't nearly as complicated as that is making it out to be to hit a target with a modern compound bow. Within a week I was able to hit a standard archery target reliably from 20-30 yards. And I should add that that wasn't even with all of the modern equipment like stabilizers and easy release triggers. These people are trying to make your shots perfect, for very serious archers trying to be as accurate as possible. That certainly isn't me, I could never take something that seriously :).

In a way, I think being trained on a medieval bow would be better for the archer than being trained on a modern one. The reason being, with a modern bow, your accuracy depends on the accuracy of your instruments. Sights, stabilizer, etc. With an unadorned bow, your accuracy relies on YOU, and should be a lot less fiddly. Plus it will teach you more. You'll spend more time watching the environment around you, learning how to adjust for wind etc. If you're a good judge of distance, once you've got the basics down it shouldn't be too hard to adjust to range to a reasonable degree.

Now go back and look at medieval times. How could they know even a smidgen of what we know now? Imagine the quality control with the need to crank out all those arrows. Would they all test them like that? Did they even have the tools to do so? Even if they could would they?

I think they would do a certain degree of testing. Obviously they didn't know as much as we do now, but they knew some of it, possibly even a good deal of it. Or at least understood enough to figure out ways to improve their accuracy. Someone serious about their skill, like a real soldier, would certainly have put in a lot of time and effort improving their marskmanship.

And that's just the weapon itself. Look at what must be done with actually shooting it.

http://handbook.jousiammuntaseura-ar.../tekniikka.htm

Look at the steps. The need to stand in the proper posture. The need to hold the bow correctly. Here's a sentence in the very beginning that stands out...

Actually, it sounds a lot more complicated than it really is. It's like riding a bike, playing a sport, learning how to drive... it will take you a while to master it, but once you have it just comes naturally. Have you ever fired a gun? It's pretty similar. If you don't stand correctly, if you aren't holding the gun right, if you pull the trigger poorly, all of those can muck up your accuracy. And like with a gun, getting any part of your actions wrong will reduce your accuracy, but you can be reasonably accurate even doing so. Now, I'm not specifically going to talk about the skill level of the average english longbowman, since I am the first to admit I know absolutely nothing about what their training regimen might look like or how well disciplined they might be. But with regular practice and some combat experience, I would expect a competent archer to be able to hit their mark the reasonable majority of the time. Not perfectly except at reasonably close distance, but perfection isn't completely needed on the battlefield either, that's more for tournaments.

[rdonj]

I played the demo a long while ago. I don't know if it has changed but the one I had was limited to the early age and I did not see an active faction with the whole breadth of weapons. I read about crossbows shooting in the back from an AAR about the faction who develops into a "cave blind society" I don't remember the name. It was when the forums were a light brown color. I had forgotten about this game, distracted with school and remembered it when I saw it on Somethingawful.

Early Age doesn't have any crossbows, I think. If any nation has them, it'd be Tien Chi, the "chinese" faction. Longbows are also pretty rare in EA, although I think one of the demo nations (Kailasa, inspired by India) has them.

The "shooting in the back" happens when the enemy forces run away and your own units try to catch up with them. Imagine 60 crossbows aiming at the three retreating militias from halfway across the battlefield, and wounding or even killing several of your own infantry who had almost caught up with them.

It can also happen with bows, of course.

I don't think T'ien Ch'i has crossbows in the early age, however their composite bows are superb for the ea setting. And yeah, kailasa does have longbows on the bandar archers.

I guess you can ignore what I said about shooting in the back, that does happen and at times I've lost more troops to my own archery as the enemy force retreated than to their infantry.

[Sombre]

It has nothing to do with 'shooting in the back' though. It's just that at range missiles weapons are no longer accurate and projectiles are much more likely to hit your own troops and irritate you when there are like 3 enemy soldiers running away and your army of 300 is hot on their heels.

[chrispedersen]

the length of the post does nothing to change the fact that you have been simply *wrong* on many points. The first being that the strength of the pull does affect the range fired.

The second being that while you can find exceptions(such as repeating crossbows), that the rate of fire of longbows *is* much greater than crossbows. So much so that that crossbows were fired and reloaded in ranks.

Generally, a nation that puts the most effective fighting force on the field at the cheapest cost wins. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions. But crossbows allowed a very cheap unit to kill very expensive units.

I'm guessing at the numbers - but crossbows were 80% as effective at 20% of the cost. With the primary cost here for longbowmen being a restricted pool of conscripts caused by the lengthy training time, and the difficulty in churning out bows.

[Kamamura]

One quick note - longbows, unlike crossbows, were used as an indirect fire weapon in battle (firing in high arc, the arrows coming from above). As such, it was much more difficult to take cover from them.

On the other hand, crossbow bolts from heavy crossbows were fired with terrible force - contemporary sources say they could pierce an armored knight altogether. The fact that the Pope issued a bula forbidding Christians to use crossbows against each other only prove, how feared weapon it was.

I think the composition of troops was also mainly determined by regional tradition - in England, archery had long tradition and therefore the populace supplied large numbers of bowmen. In real life, you cannot just "build" archers for money as in most games. The only game I know that reflect this is Crusader Kings - your nobles bring their subject to fight, and the troop composition depends on the social classes and terrain of the province, and you as a king can't influence it.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

@endoperez and rdonj: Ah I see. Well at least I know I wasn't completely crazy and imagined the whole thing with the cave people.

Okay, that site you linked made my brain bleed, I'm sorry. I just could not force myself to read through it, it was too painful. I do want to say though that I've done a bit of amateur archery, and it isn't nearly as complicated as that is making it out to be to hit a target with a modern compound bow. Within a week I was able to hit a standard archery target reliably from 20-30 yards. And I should add that that wasn't even with all of the modern equipment like stabilizers and easy release triggers. These people are trying to make your shots perfect, for very serious archers trying to be as accurate as possible. That certainly isn't me, I could never take something that seriously .

In a way, I think being trained on a medieval bow would be better for the archer than being trained on a modern one. The reason being, with a modern bow, your accuracy depends on the accuracy of your instruments. Sights, stabilizer, etc. With an unadorned bow, your accuracy relies on YOU, and should be a lot less fiddly. Plus it will teach you more. You'll spend more time watching the environment around you, learning how to adjust for wind etc. If you're a good judge of distance, once you've got the basics down it shouldn't be too hard to adjust to range to a reasonable degree.

Well again I doubt a medieval bow made in medieval times could even approach something that quality wise to a modern one. The assumption that a medieval archer could be better than one with all the accessories seems dubious because in that particular example the question of the archers personal skill is not the key factor it appears in others minds which is what I was trying to get at. The weapons made in those days were simply not the quality to allow an archer assuming he could be that skilled to shoot in that manner precisely because he doesn't know how his next shot would behave. To assume that much relies on personal skill is to assume that those medieval longbows are essentially "perfect."

I think they would do a certain degree of testing. Obviously they didn't know as much as we do now, but they knew some of it, possibly even a good deal of it. Or at least understood enough to figure out ways to improve their accuracy. Someone serious about their skill, like a real soldier, would certainly have put in a lot of time and effort improving their marskmanship.

There were guilds that attempted to do so certainly it's where we get the surname Fletcher from, but given that so many things can go wrong when creating arrows relative to modern times I am simply not seeing any real accuracy coming from there. And in terms of the need to crank them out in the sheer numbers required even if they could technically do so they wouldn't be able to. Also many of these arrows wouldn't survive in reusable condition if tested in a bow used for warfare.

Actually, it sounds a lot more complicated than it really is. It's like riding a bike, playing a sport, learning how to drive... it will take you a while to master it, but once you have it just comes naturally. Have you ever fired a gun? It's pretty similar. If you don't stand correctly, if you aren't holding the gun right, if you pull the trigger poorly, all of those can muck up your accuracy. And like with a gun, getting any part of your actions wrong will reduce your accuracy, but you can be reasonably accurate even doing so. Now, I'm not specifically going to talk about the skill level of the average english longbowman, since I am the first to admit I know absolutely nothing about what their training regimen might look like or how well disciplined they might be. But with regular practice and some combat experience, I would expect a competent archer to be able to hit their mark the reasonable majority of the time. Not perfectly except at reasonably close distance, but perfection isn't completely needed on the battlefield either, that's more for tournaments.

Well laid plans and training surviving combat in 100% percent capacity seem unlikely to me. Riding a bike on a battlefield is going to be a distinctly different experience. And as practiced as those steps could be there are still a lot of them with much less tolerance for variation. I can minimize my profile crouching with crossbow/firearm for instance and still maintain proper form. In terms of sheer number of things that can go wrong those weapons have them much much less than bows by removing how much human error can effect them. Can a longbowman draw a bow back to the same spot when wounded, when sick, when scared out of his mind? Because a crossbow must be drawn to the nut and cannot be anywhere else it is going to be in it's proper place every single time. Minimizing the effects human error is a very significant advantage.

the length of the post does nothing to change the fact that you have been simply *wrong* on many points. The first being that the strength of the pull does affect the range fired.

Arrows have be balanced according to their bows. They have to be pulled the same way, every single time. You can't vary the pull as you claimed. The arrow will veer off in a *significant* manner. You won't have a smidgen of a hope of hitting anything. You will have negative hope. You will owe me some hope. That is how bad it will be.

The second being that while you can find exceptions(such as repeating crossbows), that the rate of fire of longbows *is* much greater than crossbows. So much so that that crossbows were fired and reloaded in ranks.

It isn't that much greater because you could not maintain it and the number you implied was simply too high in any case. Add to the fact that they could not be as accurate and the quality per arrow even if they DID hit was simply not as good presents a different picture. There is a rate and an effective rate.


Generally, a nation that puts the most effective fighting force on the field at the cheapest cost wins. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions. But crossbows allowed a very cheap unit to kill very expensive units.

I'm guessing at the numbers - but crossbows were 80% as effective at 20% of the cost. With the primary cost here for longbowmen being a restricted pool of conscripts caused by the lengthy training time, and the difficulty in churning out bows.

Crossbows are not cheap. Where do people get the notions that they were cheap? You need bowmaking skills to make the bow part of the weapon. You need someone to fashion the trigger and the small mechanics. Someone to fashion a tiller. Someone to make the string. Someone to make the device to reload the weapon. And the person to put it together could be completely different. With a bow one dude can make a bow and that is often how it was done. Someone who could produce a complete crossbow on his own was very rare and needed more people. People who had to be organized and communicate to one another. The sheer complexity of construction and the number of folks needed to be *paid* shows that this idea is faulty.

All medieval armies canvassed among their healthy citizens for soldiers and martial practice throughout their life was normal for multiple nations and so much of training is "free." This was the advantage of having troops bring their own weapons after all. When you have to start paying them yourself is when the costs rise up.

@Kamamura: Crossbows can do that too. Again there is no indirect specialty of the bow. There are helmets recovered from Wisby penetrated by bolts that came down I believe.

[KissBlade]

I think the point Kamamura is trying to make was that wasting crossmen men to simply saturate a field indirectly is pointless. Where the longbow is more easily fielded (think AK-47's), the crossbow due to it's higher cost and greater precision fire seems to be more like a sniper rifle.

[rdonj]

Well again I doubt a medieval bow made in medieval times could even approach something that quality wise to a modern one. The assumption that a medieval archer could be better than one with all the accessories seems dubious because in that particular example the question of the archers personal skill is not the key factor it appears in others minds which is what I was trying to get at. The weapons made in those days were simply not the quality to allow an archer assuming he could be that skilled to shoot in that manner precisely because he doesn't know how his next shot would behave. To assume that much relies on personal skill is to assume that those medieval longbows are essentially "perfect."

Hmm, I didn't quite mean it that way. What I was trying to say that I think training an archer on a longbow as opposed to a compound bow would be better in the long run for the archer, because it would foster more the personal skill of the archer. With a compound bow you rely on a lot of crutches to maximize your accuracy. Sights on your bow that can and frequently do come loose from the force expended in firing. Special release triggers that could break in the middle of battle or get lost in a baggage train. All those niggling little things in that article you linked. Everything we do with the modern compound bow is to make the shot rely as little on the archer and as much on the bow as possible... which would make it very easy for everything to fall apart if something is misaligned. If you're just relying on yourself and you're used to relying on yourself, it's a lot easier to compensate than when you've not trained yourself how to. When everything is working properly with the compound bow you'll have great accuracy, but when things get misaligned you have to spend a significant amount of time retuning the equipment.

And I am somewhat doubtful that an archer would not know how his next shot would behave. That seems unlikely to me. While it is true that back then they didn't have the same kind of quality control that we did I am not so sure that some small imperfections in the crafting of the bow would have such a drastic effect on its accuracy. A bow made by some random peasant who's never made a bow before, sure, I'll agree it's probably not going to come out very well. But a bow made by someone who knows what they're doing, that's a bit different of a story. Besides, having used the bow for hours and hours of practice you would learn if your bow maybe shoots a bit to the left, or a bit high, etc. You would learn how to compensate for any small degree of imperfection. Or you would use the bow for firewood if it just can't shoot straight. Although really, I don't think there's a whole lot that can go terribly wrong in the making of the bow itself... it would seem to me that their biggest problem hundreds of years ago would be in the bowstring.


There were guilds that attempted to do so certainly it's where we get the surname Fletcher from, but given that so many things can go wrong when creating arrows relative to modern times I am simply not seeing any real accuracy coming from there. And in terms of the need to crank them out in the sheer numbers required even if they could technically do so they wouldn't be able to. Also many of these arrows wouldn't survive in reusable condition if tested in a bow used for warfare.

I agree with you to a point here. There's just no way that they could have enough competent fletchers making enough high quality arrows designed specifically for each different bow every man in an army is using personally and supply them for any reasonable period of time. Chances are they mass produced arrows to a specific length, and if you wanted perfectly made arrows for you and your bow you'd have to make them yourself. I'm not sure the arrows wouldn't survive though, if you're testing on a hay bale for example, it's unlikely to damage the arrow itself though I wouldn't be too surprised if the fletchings were damaged.


Well laid plans and training surviving combat in 100% percent capacity seem unlikely to me. Riding a bike on a battlefield is going to be a distinctly different experience. And as practiced as those steps could be there are still a lot of them with much less tolerance for variation. I can minimize my profile crouching with crossbow/firearm for instance and still maintain proper form. In terms of sheer number of things that can go wrong those weapons have them much much less than bows by removing how much human error can effect them.

I still think you overestimate just how hard it is to fire a bow properly ;). The difference between a perfect shot and a middling-good shot (which is most of what you should be getting in battlefield conditions at moderate range, I think), is with the perfect shot you hit the guy in the middle of the torso. With the middling shot you might hit him in the arm, stomach, or maybe a leg. With a very poor shot, you'll go over his head, hit the ground in front of him, or the arrow will fly off to a side... and two of those shots still have a chance to hit someone else. Plus if you're shooting into a packed mass of soldiers like at agincourt it would be hard to miss completely and not hit anyone at all. And at least while you're not being shot at and people aren't close enough to stab you, it should not be too hard to fire properly. Taking the example of the bike in a battlefield... are you going to forget how to ride? Maybe you'll exaggerate some of the motions. Maybe with all the adrenaline you'll fall off trying to ride away while someone's shooting in your general direction. But then you'll get back on the bike and keep on peddling. I will freely admit there's more chance of human error with a bow, and less ease of profile minimalization. Those are unfortunate drawbacks to the weapon.

Can a longbowman draw a bow back to the same spot when wounded, when sick, when scared out of his mind?Because a crossbow must be drawn to the nut and cannot be anywhere else it is going to be in it's proper place every single time. Minimizing the effects human error is a very significant advantage.

Depends where, probably not but depends on how sick, probably because you train to pull the bow back to the same spot every time, and if you were too scared to do that you'd probably be running for dear life :). Let's reverse that, crossbows have a higher draw weight per bow strength than an ordinary bow has, and required mechanical means to draw them. Could a crossbowman draw his crossbow when sick, wounded, or scared out of his mind? I would guess the answers are pretty similar to mine for the longbow actually, though I admit to never having fired a crossbow, particularly a medieval crossbow.

[Gregstrom]

Well again I doubt a medieval bow made in medieval times could even approach something that quality wise to a modern one...

To assume that much relies on personal skill is to assume that those medieval longbows are essentially "perfect."


This is an assumption I just plain disagree with. It is patronising at the very least to assume that because medieval craftsmen lacked modern technology they couldn't work wood to a high standard.


There were guilds that attempted to do so certainly it's where we get the surname Fletcher from, but given that so many things can go wrong when creating arrows relative to modern times I am simply not seeing any real accuracy coming from there. And in terms of the need to crank them out in the sheer numbers required even if they could technically do so they wouldn't be able to. Also many of these arrows wouldn't survive in reusable condition if tested in a bow used for warfare.


Again I dipute this blanket assumption that medieval skills couldn't make an arrow tht would fly true.

I will agree, though, that goods mass produced for the military were likely to be substandard. As noted elsewhere, though, it may well be the case that battlefield longbow use was more about hitting an area reliably than about precision targetting of individuals. In which case the point is more or less moot.


Well laid plans and training surviving combat in 100% percent capacity seem unlikely to me. Can a longbowman draw a bow back to the same spot when wounded, when sick, when scared out of his mind? Because a crossbow must be drawn to the nut and cannot be anywhere else it is going to be in it's proper place every single time. Minimizing the effects human error is a very significant advantage.

I believe that's down to training, in much the same way as modern armies do it. Since military training was being done pretty darn well by the 1st century BC, I don't think this argument holds very much water.



Arrows have be balanced according to their bows. They have to be pulled the same way, every single time. You can't vary the pull as you claimed.

I have to agree. I haven't done much archery, but this agrees with what I have done. Besides, if you don't pull as hard on the bow then the arrow won't have as much kinetic energy behind it and won't be very effective.


But crossbows allowed a very cheap unit to kill very expensive units.

I'm guessing at the numbers - but crossbows were 80% as effective at 20% of the cost. With the primary cost here for longbowmen being a restricted pool of conscripts caused by the lengthy training time, and the difficulty in churning out bows.

Crossbows are not cheap. Where do people get the notions that they were cheap? You need bowmaking skills to make the bow part of the weapon. You need someone to fashion the trigger and the small mechanics. Someone to fashion a tiller. Someone to make the string. Someone to make the device to reload the weapon. And the person to put it together could be completely different.


Ooh, sounds a bit like an assembly line. You know, one of those manufacturing techniques that reduces cost due to increased efficiency? (not that crossbows wouldn't still be expensive, of course)
Please note: the guy you're quoting specified that the costs he mentioned weren't financial but the availability of trained men and speed of bow manufacture.



All medieval armies canvassed among their healthy citizens for soldiers and martial practice throughout their life was normal for multiple nations and so much of training is "free." This was the advantage of having troops bring their own weapons after all. When you have to start paying for them yourself is when the costs rise up.


I do see one big advantage to feudal lords for the crossbow - most peasants aren't going to own them because of the price. Not having a workforce who can shoot you if they don't like your taxes is a Good Thing.

[Incabulos]

heh you ask me we have lost plenty of knowledge from past ages in all aspects of art, construction and science and skill and craftsmanship has gone down.

Mass production has seen to that. Scientific undertanding of a subject does not = practical ability. And there are plenty of things that we cannot match the quality of today. from violins to swords to construction techniques. Architecture is probably the most striking example though.

[chrispedersen]

@endoperez and rdonj: Ah I see. Well at least I know I wasn't completely crazy and imagined the whole thing with the cave people.

Well, you didn't imagine the part about the agarthans. The rest of it is dubious.

Generally, a nation that puts the most effective fighting force on the field at the cheapest cost wins. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions. But crossbows allowed a very cheap unit to kill very expensive units.

I'm guessing at the numbers - but crossbows were 80% as effective at 20% of the cost. With the primary cost here for longbowmen being a restricted pool of conscripts caused by the lengthy training time, and the difficulty in churning out bows.

Crossbows are not cheap. Where do people get the notions that they were cheap? You need bowmaking skills to make the bow part of the weapon. You need someone to fashion the trigger and the small mechanics. Someone to fashion a tiller. Someone to make the string. Someone to make the device to reload the weapon. And the person to put it together could be completely different. With a bow one dude can make a bow and that is often how it was done. Someone who could produce a complete crossbow on his own was very rare and needed more people. People who had to be organized and communicate to one another. The sheer complexity of construction and the number of folks needed to be *paid* shows that this idea is faulty.

Dude. I made a fully functional crossbow, that would penetrate 2" of wood in 5th grade.

The "bow" part of the weapon is called a stock. And no, you don't need any particular bowyer skill.

I think you have *no* general idea of the level of complexity that societies of the time were capable of generating. For example, looms of the times had up to ***10,000*** moving parts.
To think that societies couldn't crank out crossbows with 10-24 parts cheaply is .. simply laughable.

The reason looms were successful is the same reason that crossbows were successful. Large amounts of standardized parts could be cranked out, and assembled, quickly and cheaply.

And yes, compared to knights, sappers, artillerymen, crossbowmen *were* cheap.

Crossbowmen had essentially no need to train. These troops were often raised in mere weeks, vs. the years required to gain excellence with the longbow. Because they had virtually no training - they were easier to raise, deployable from virtually any population. And when killed they were easily replaceable.

[Agema]

Considering the people of the medieval and ancient era managed to do stuff as complex as build Hagia Sophia, make Attic pottery and craft intricate jewellery, I think we can expect the average medieval bowyer to be able to make a pretty reliable bow. I suspect a trained archer could also adapt to a new bow of the same basic design pretty quickly.

I saw some program where a modern guy did horse archery and could fairly reliably hit a conventional archery target at 30 yards or so whilst the horse was moving. Also, if you consider an archer has to hit a block of infantry/cavalry however much wide and maybe 4-10 ranks deep, he's got a fair bit of room for inaccuracy.

[Dedas]

And then imagine that the ancient horse archer were born on horseback with a bow as their first toy, and I say would say accuracy would not be a problem. :)

[P3D]

The English longbow did not need the years of training in order to get the archers to hit the target. It needed that to build up the muscles to pull a 120lbs+ longbow - resulting in bone deformities found on medieval skeletons.
And you needed that strength to punch through any armor.

As comparison, modern bows are much lighter. Entry-level adult bows are usually around 40 lbs (pound force, 4.54N), the ones used by the average hobbyists are 60-80, be they of whatever type. 40-60lbs bows in the medieval were used by the womenfolk of castles - for hunting and last-ditch defense. And much less effective in combat - shorter range and penetrating power. I was shooting a 40lbs bow and it had hard time penetrate 1" pine from 20 yards or so, FWIW.

OTOH. Get a crossbow and an average medieval youth, with strong muscles from physical work. Longbows have to be pulled by upper body, while crossbows are pulled by (stronger) leg muscles or windlass. You get the range and penetrating power (as in 80lbs+) you need without too much of training and could trump the range and power of any long bow with a crossbow strong enough. Granted, you need the resources to field 3 crossbowmen for each longbowmen for the same ROF - but they would need about the same amount of ammunition for comparable effect.

Of course, if your king orders archery to be a national pastime for every commoner, and your society is suitable for it - e.g. a peasantry not oppressed as much as the serfs in continental Europe thus less likely to revolt - an island nation should go for longbow.

Just my two cents.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Hmm, I didn't quite mean it that way. What I was trying to say that I think training an archer on a longbow as opposed to a compound bow would be better in the long run for the archer, because it would foster more the personal skill of the archer. With a compound bow you rely on a lot of crutches to maximize your accuracy. Sights on your bow that can and frequently do come loose from the force expended in firing. Special release triggers that could break in the middle of battle or get lost in a baggage train. All those niggling little things in that article you linked. Everything we do with the modern compound bow is to make the shot rely as little on the archer and as much on the bow as possible... which would make it very easy for everything to fall apart if something is misaligned. If you're just relying on yourself and you're used to relying on yourself, it's a lot easier to compensate than when you've not trained yourself how to. When everything is working properly with the compound bow you'll have great accuracy, but when things get misaligned you have to spend a significant amount of time retuning the equipment.

Again personal skill cannot overcome mechanical disadvantages because an archer does not control his arrow in mid flight. There is only so much he can do. And relying on mechanical aid is a good thing. A human being is more likely to be inconsistent than a misaligned machine because at least a misaligned machine is much more likely to be inconsistent the same way.


And I am somewhat doubtful that an archer would not know how his next shot would behave. That seems unlikely to me. While it is true that back then they didn't have the same kind of quality control that we did I am not so sure that some small imperfections in the crafting of the bow would have such a drastic effect on its accuracy. A bow made by some random peasant who's never made a bow before, sure, I'll agree it's probably not going to come out very well. But a bow made by someone who knows what they're doing, that's a bit different of a story. Besides, having used the bow for hours and hours of practice you would learn if your bow maybe shoots a bit to the left, or a bit high, etc. You would learn how to compensate for any small degree of imperfection. Or you would use the bow for firewood if it just can't shoot straight. Although really, I don't think there's a whole lot that can go terribly wrong in the making of the bow itself... it would seem to me that their biggest problem hundreds of years ago would be in the bowstring.

Is a soldier going to be able to keep the same bow he has on the field and "forever?" Is the soldier going sure of the quality of the arrows? Even if the soldier had the same bow and we were assured it's quality was constant so he could "get use to it" he couldn't be sure of the quality of his arrows and if you admit variances within the bow then you know that the arrows themselves cannot be truly right for it. To truly know how your bow "behaves" you have to assume that arrows were a constant quality which you yourself admit that would be problematic in the paragraph after this one.

I still think you overestimate just how hard it is to fire a bow properly . The difference between a perfect shot and a middling-good shot (which is most of what you should be getting in battlefield conditions at moderate range, I think), is with the perfect shot you hit the guy in the middle of the torso. With the middling shot you might hit him in the arm, stomach, or maybe a leg. With a very poor shot, you'll go over his head, hit the ground in front of him, or the arrow will fly off to a side... and two of those shots still have a chance to hit someone else. Plus if you're shooting into a packed mass of soldiers like at agincourt it would be hard to miss completely and not hit anyone at all. And at least while you're not being shot at and people aren't close enough to stab you, it should not be too hard to fire properly. Taking the example of the bike in a battlefield... are you going to forget how to ride? Maybe you'll exaggerate some of the motions. Maybe with all the adrenaline you'll fall off trying to ride away while someone's shooting in your general direction. But then you'll get back on the bike and keep on peddling. I will freely admit there's more chance of human error with a bow, and less ease of profile minimalization. Those are unfortunate drawbacks to the weapon.


And wouldn't you say a bike relies a lot on "mechanical aid?" Such that the level of inputs you put in to get a bike to work is much less than one you need to get a bow to "work." I think you are underestimating the raw fear that a battlefield instills in somebody. A musket is considered an easy to use weapon but there are plenty of instances where weapons have been found with multiple loads in them due to panic.

Also you assume that a missed arrow that still hits somebody is the same quality of one that hits an intended target directly. The very nature of how an arrow leaves the bow has a great effect on its character. I think your assumption that the arrow wouldn't vary that much is too optimistic and the implication that an "off" arrow is just as good as a direct arrow is too ambitious as well. The rush and panic to pump out arrows is likely to mean that the archers aren't pulling as far as they need to leading to significant veering and falling short.

Depends where, probably not but depends on how sick, probably because you train to pull the bow back to the same spot every time, and if you were too scared to do that you'd probably be running for dear life . Let's reverse that, crossbows have a higher draw weight per bow strength than an ordinary bow has, and required mechanical means to draw them. Could a crossbowman draw his crossbow when sick, wounded, or scared out of his mind? I would guess the answers are pretty similar to mine for the longbow actually, though I admit to never having fired a crossbow, particularly a medieval crossbow.

Being sick and sapped for strength would make the elbow grease required to load a crossbow problematic yes, but crossbows have periods of rest (when it's loaded) to help compensate. Since the range of motion required is not as involved you are more likely to be able to load it compared to drawing and shooting a bow and since you cannot screw up form since the string must be pulled to the nut (same spot) unlike a longbow which relies on the archer. The less things a human can screw up the better.

This is an assumption I just plain disagree with. It is patronising at the very least to assume that because medieval craftsmen lacked modern technology they couldn't work wood to a high standard.

High standard compared to what? How could a medieval craftsmen compete with new materials made with computer modeling? How is that notion patronizing? And again the major issue here is consistency. Even if they were high standard were they all the same kind of standard? The arrow and the bow are simply too dependent upon one another. And even if you could achieve perfection you notice the bending of the arrow along it's node points prevent a truly exact hit because of it's inherent buckling and the flopping of the head of the arrow makes it much less likely for a truly direct contact.

Again I dipute this blanket assumption that medieval skills couldn't make an arrow tht would fly true.

I will agree, though, that goods mass produced for the military were likely to be substandard. As noted elsewhere, though, it may well be the case that battlefield longbow use was more about hitting an area reliably than about precision targetting of individuals. In which case the point is more or less moot.

Your assertion only works if getting it into that area is a given and it simply isn't. And a cohesive volley is more effective and you don't get that without "precision."

I believe that's down to training, in much the same way as modern armies do it. Since military training was being done pretty darn well by the 1st century BC, I don't think this argument holds very much water.

The problem with this statement is that more modern armies with "slow easy to use weapons," the imperialistic powers with their guns tore indigenous populations using the old school a new one. Your argument would only hold water if the quality of these old school armies like India with it's longbows would be smacking around those powers using that old timey shooty magic. I don't see what your saying holding water unless a delorean full of Uzis is involved.

Ooh, sounds a bit like an assembly line. You know, one of those manufacturing techniques that reduces cost due to increased efficiency? (not that crossbows wouldn't still be expensive, of course)
Please note: the guy you're quoting specified that the costs he mentioned weren't financial but the availability of trained men and speed of bow manufacture.

Well he says otherwise in a later post LOL. But anyway an assembly line cannot be compared to individual dedicated craftsmen. Regular bows were easier to pump out I mean a lot of these composite crossbows used whale bone. Do you think it's easier to get a whale, kill it, remove it's whaley meats, get the bone, and craft the bone than to chop down a tree? Plus crossbows needed wood for that composite (yew) so you had to chop down tree too. I'm telling you no way in heck can crossbows be cheaper.

I do see one big advantage to feudal lords for the crossbow - most peasants aren't going to own them because of the price. Not having a workforce who can shoot you if they don't like your taxes is a Good Thing.

Unruly peasants were always a problem however, longbowmen were not true peasants but belonged to a class called Franklins. The whole longbowmen was a mere peasant thing fighting snooty nobles for FREEEEEDOOOOM is somewhat of a historical revisionism with a political axe to grind. The majority of true peasants were still quite screwed.


heh you ask me we have lost plenty of knowledge from past ages in all aspects of art, construction and science and skill and craftsmanship has gone down.

Mass production has seen to that. Scientific undertanding of a subject does not = practical ability. And there are plenty of things that we cannot match the quality of today. from violins to swords to construction techniques. Architecture is probably the most striking example though.


Huh? Err you honestly don't think a sky scraper or a space station is more impressive and requires more practical ability than what they had in the middle ages? Scientific understanding is what refines and takes "practical ability" to new heights. And they can make carbon nanotube blades now I believe. If you had modern day sword guy vs. medieval sword guy assuming equal skill medieval sword guy would lose...badly. Even without the modern stuff the mere superior health of the modern guy would be enough. It is silly to think that some guy in medieval times can crank out a better bow than one produced with all the materials technology, computers, and techniques of today. Medieval craftsmen were not Mentats.


Dude. I made a fully functional crossbow, that would penetrate 2" of wood in 5th grade.
Radical? Cowabunga? What is this suppose to tell me again?

The "bow" part of the weapon is called a stock. And no, you don't need any particular bowyer skill.

No. The "bow" part as in the limbs were the magic shooty elves live is the prod or lath. The stock is called the tiller. You need bowyer skill as well as other folks. Also chicks dig guys with skills.

I think you have *no* general idea of the level of complexity that societies of the time were capable of generating. For example, looms of the times had up to ***10,000*** moving parts.
To think that societies couldn't crank out crossbows with 10-24 parts cheaply is .. simply laughable.

Looms come in many varieties like simple hand looms. You're making it sound like the 10,000 part uber loom is the norm for these peoples like a washing machine for the average peasant. Not to mention a loom is constantly producing a good recuperating its cost. A crossbow comes from a series of parts produced by dedicated craftsmen who want to be PAID and who need materials who are collected by people who also need to be paid and has to be made over and over again. And if you are judging parts as cost well how many "parts" does a regular bow have?

The reason looms were successful is the same reason that crossbows were successful. Large amounts of standardized parts could be cranked out, and assembled, quickly and cheaply.

Doesn't work like that in those days. You cannot compare dedicated medieval craftsmen to modern day assembly.

And yes, compared to knights, sappers, artillerymen, crossbowmen *were* cheap.

A knight of "gentle birth" is going to need money yes obviously but a sapper? And artilleryman as an "engineer" type or generic mook to carry and help assemble? LOL no. Crossbowmen were not cheap. Their wages were high and the weapon themselves ensure that.


Crossbowmen had essentially no need to train. These troops were often raised in mere weeks, vs. the years required to gain excellence with the longbow. Because they had virtually no training - they were easier to raise, deployable from virtually any population. And when killed they were easily replaceable.

GWAHAHAHAHA! Easier to use does not mean "easy for everybody." This is not reflected in their wages as they made on average three times as much as "normal soldier" and being "number one crossbowman" was like being a minor noble in several countries. You fall under the fallacy that being easier to acclimate to a weapon implies that mastery is not possible or desirable. A modern day soldier's weapon is easier then either a longbow or crossbow. They still need to train and maintain their skills and yes there is difference between a Marine and some hobo you gave a gun to and dumped on a battlefield.


@Agema and P3D
Already addressed above and before as well.

[JimMorrison]

Every post, and this does look more and more like a personal agenda - and a very emotionally biased one, at that. On that note, I do not choose a side in this argument, I believe that both tools of war have valid applications, and that one may excel where the other fails - thus my amusement with this entire argument. But still, I want to dance with you, Joe. :p




And relying on mechanical aid is a good thing. A human being is more likely to be inconsistent than a misaligned machine because at least a misaligned machine is much more likely to be inconsistent the same way.

You are gleefully missing the point. He said that working with less sophisticated equipment creates a better operator. The point boiled down to this - take a modern compound bow, and remove the sights and other "archer aids". Odds are, that the classically trained longbowman will operate that bow at a level superior to a modern archery student, who has only ever fired a bow with all of the modern accessories.


Even if the soldier had the same bow and we were assured it's quality was constant so he could "get use to it" he couldn't be sure of the quality of his arrows and if you admit variances within the bow then you know that the arrows themselves cannot be truly right for it. To truly know how your bow "behaves" you have to assume that arrows were a constant quality which you yourself admit that would be problematic in the paragraph after this one.

Again, the theory behind the use of archers seemed to be "sheer # of pointy sticks flying through the air". Perhaps hastily crafted arrows are not suitable for target archery, or even for hunting. But they are just fine for firing at thousands of screaming soldiers. Most of them. You shrug off the bad arrows, because you have highly trained your archers to fire quickly and tirelessly, to saturate your field with projectiles.


Also you assume that a missed arrow that still hits somebody is the same quality of one that hits an intended target directly. The very nature of how an arrow leaves the bow has a great effect on its character. I think your assumption that the arrow wouldn't vary that much is too optimistic and the implication that an "off" arrow is just as good as a direct arrow is too ambitious as well. The rush and panic to pump out arrows is likely to mean that the archers aren't pulling as far as they need to leading to significant veering and falling short.

Oddly, you are also making an -assumption- here, that disagrees very widely with historical accounts, that only precisely and purposefully fired arrows are lethal. Most bow volleys were not fired at short range, and thus were not fired directly. They are lobbed in the general direction of a foe, with the assumption that enough of them will find meat, to justify the expense.


High standard compared to what? How could a medieval craftsmen compete with new materials made with computer modeling?

I don't know, come back to me when modern craftsmen can replicate the functional perfection of say, a Stradivarius, or the Great Pyramid. There are truly countless examples of physical feats that our predecessors performed at levels of proficiency that are as yet unmatched in modern day.


Your assertion only works if getting it into that area is a given and it simply isn't. And a cohesive volley is more effective and you don't get that without "precision."

I believe the entire argument up to now, has been the temporal ease with which the English were able to raise large numbers of longbowmen. The point being that perhaps 1000 crossbowmen in many cases are superior to 1000 longbowmen, but 2000 longbowmen with slightly inferior ability, and slightly inferior arrows, will create a level of saturation that will -possibly- achieve the desired effect more readily. There are 2 VERY important points about this. The first is that the historical accounts are that this period was one of great success for England, so we know that the Welsh longbow must be good for something. But also, we know that there is no true way to compare the performance of the available alternatives, because we're hundreds of years past the fact. So you are arguing theory (your heartfelt beliefs in the ability of the crossbow) versus the reality of the longbow's success.


Regular bows were easier to pump out I mean a lot of these composite crossbows used whale bone. Do you think it's easier to get a whale, kill it, remove it's whaley meats, get the bone, and craft the bone than to chop down a tree?

Many animal parts were used for composite bows (cross or traditional), but composite crossbows were not used exclusively, nor was whale bone the industry standard. Seems that ox and other more commonly seen animals yielded most of the materials.


...you honestly don't think a sky scraper or a space station is more impressive and requires more practical ability than what they had in the middle ages? Scientific understanding is what refines and takes "practical ability" to new heights.

I do not think that anyone argued that we can do things that more primitive men could not. The point is, they also could do things that WE cannot. Pride in our accomplishments will not bring back the depth and capability of pre-modern craftsmen.



Also chicks dig guys with skills.

Nunchuck skills?


GWAHAHAHAHA! Easier to use does not mean "easy for everybody." This is not reflected in their wages as they made on average three times as much as "normal soldier"

Where do you get your figures on expected medieval salaries? This is a pretty bold claim, and I think deserves a source.


...and being "number one crossbowman" was like being a minor noble in several countries.

Well it's a good thing that no one ever celebrated and revered master archers, or you might not have a point at all here.

<3

I have yet to see a weapon fire magic bullets, and I would agree that the longbow certainly does not do so. And neither does the crossbow.

I think your rigid thinking holds you back from the true reality of warfare (especially medieval warfare), that there is no right answer - there is only what works.

[DarkAnt]

As I recall the History Channel had a show on the Battle of Crecy(hitler was not involved strangely enough). They performed tests which concluded that the English longbowmen's arrows couldn't actually penetrate French armor. They then brought in a crowd control expert who studied the landscape of the battle and thought it would represent a serious crowd control problem. They were fighting in a valley and all of the French knights were going after the same few British nobles. The History Channel then looked at how the saturated ground affected troop movement. The effect of the mud was so bad that it required something like 30lbs of force for a fully armored French knight to pull his boot out of the mud. The much lighter armored English longbowmen did not have this problem. They concluded that the French had serious crowd control issues that caused them to bunch and fall over. Unfortunately for the French, due to the suction generated by the mud+heavy smooth armor contact, the French knights became exhausted and stuck in the mud. At this point the English longbowmen just walked around and slit all of the noble's throats as they received nothing for a ransom. Its been a while since I've seen that episode so I probably have a few "facts" wrong. The History Channel has seemed to have moved on to end of the world garbage :(

On another note, the Pope outlawed crossbows for some time because they were so devastating. I think its very clear where I stand in the crossbow vs. longbow debate.

Edit: wow this post is 15 pages long. I thought it was 3 pages...

[Sombre]

If your memory is correct it seems that TV show ignored the presence of horses entirely. Even if longbow arrows couldn't penetrate french armour (which I believe they could) they could still take down the horses, causing a huge amount of damage. Coming off a horse abruptly in full armour while other fellows on huge horses in full armour are charging around and doing the same, that can't be a lot of fun.

[rdonj]

You are gleefully missing the point. He said that working with less sophisticated equipment creates a better operator. The point boiled down to this - take a modern compound bow, and remove the sights and other "archer aids". Odds are, that the classically trained longbowman will operate that bow at a level superior to a modern archery student, who has only ever fired a bow with all of the modern accessories.

Bingo!

<3 JM


For the record, I'm on neither side of the debate. I was actually arguing a completely seperate point :)

[lch]

I don't know, come back to me when modern craftsmen can replicate the functional perfection of say, a Stradivarius, or the Great Pyramid. There are truly countless examples of physical feats that our predecessors performed at levels of proficiency that are as yet unmatched in modern day.
I don't want to enter any Crossbows vs. Longbows, Pirates vs. Ninjas, Vampires vs. Werewolves or similar discussions, but I actually have to tell a little story about this. There's this local guy that has used applied mathematics, FEM and stuff like that, to make stringed instruments. His work wasn't really popular, though, so he invested a couple of kilos and bought a Stradivarius. Then he submitted the Stradivarius as his own work, and (I think seperately) his own work as Stradivarius a couple of times. The supposed Stradivarius was always held in high favors and the perfect sound was emphasized, while the supposed own work performed not so good against "real" Stradivarius and similar great names. It shows that names are more important than quality even in this business. Since this little stunt, he now is really popular and makes good money by producing more strings, of which he can only make a few per year, AFAIK he's pretty overbooked now and he's in the newspapers here from time to time.

As for the Pyramids, I don't know, what function did they have besides being an impressive looking amount of rocks that formed a gigantic tomb? There's enough similar megalomaniacal projects around the world all time.

[Sombre]

Yeah I'm definitely not convinced we /can't/ reproduce great works of the past, it's just that we /don't/. We produce great works appropriate to our time, like supercomputers, skyscrapers and power stations. Can we make something just like the pyramids? Of course we can. But we won't, because who would ever put all the effort and manpower in? Culturual and societal pressures are entirely different.

That said we could easily make a modern versions of the pyramids by stacking machine made concrete cubes on each other. It wouldn't be impressive like th pyramids are though, because the process involved wouldn't be impressive.

[Dedas]

I want to build a pyramid in my garden to preserve me for the afterlife. I would certainly not want to look bad when attending to afterlife parties. Also, with a pyramid, my fans would have a natural place of worship.
Oh, and the pyramid could also function as a place to stash my body while I'm being called back from the place of fairies and fancy dress parties.

[JimMorrison]

As for the Pyramids, I don't know, what function did they have besides being an impressive looking amount of rocks that formed a gigantic tomb? There's enough similar megalomaniacal projects around the world all time.

Well I didn't mean that the Pyramids themselves are functional, I was referring to functionality of the masonry involved, and the engineering required.

Just to clarify one thing - we still do not *know* how on Earth those pyramids got completed. The theories are getting better, but it's truly astounding how large the stones are, even near the top - we would have tremendous problems placing those stones today without a helicopter.

But back to the masonry, the Pyramids, like many ancient masterworks of stone, never had and never needed mortar, or anything to bind the stones together. They are fashioned at a level comparable to the finest machine cut stone (bear in mind, I am really comparing them to modern human stonecutters), despite the fact that they are not regular and standardized in size and shape.

Even more astounding to me, are the "viewing" portals placed strategically about the structures. These are angled tunnels, of less than 1' square, leading out from key chambers to coincide with astronomical events. There are thousands of feet of these tunnels, and the ones that I have seen (they've sent at least a couple of RC cameras up them) are perfectly smooth - impeccably crafted into hundreds of stones which whose placement and assembly is simply incredible.


We don't have stonemasons today that can even approach this level of craftsmanship on any scale even remotely approaching the construction of such an immense structure. If Khufu had ordered the Pyramid built on the day of his birth (no mean feat!) it is estimated that 250 tons of stone would have to be installed every day for his entire 60+ years of life, if they had expected it to be complete in time for his death.

Also, a cited quote from Wikipedia- "The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have a mean error of only 58 millimeter in length, and 1 minute in angle from a perfect square. The base is horizontal and flat to within 15 mm. The sides of the square are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 3 minutes of arc based on true north not magnetic north)."


Show me someone today who can perform this feat with only 5000 year old technology, and I will surely give you a cookie, sir.

Oh and did you know, that the longbow was just used to humiliate the French at Crecy, while the Welsh waited for them to exhaust themselves, so they could slit their throats? That account of the battle seems a bit fanciful, but I can get behind it. The longbow even wins fights where it kills no one. :o

[chrispedersen]

Again, the theory behind the use of archers seemed to be "sheer # of pointy sticks flying through the air". Perhaps hastily crafted arrows are not suitable for target archery, or even for hunting. But they are just fine for firing at thousands of screaming soldiers. Most of them. You shrug off the bad arrows, because you have highly trained your archers to fire quickly and tirelessly, to saturate your field with projectiles.




Interesting side note.

Common knowledge (hence often wrong) - looking at the number of bullets produced in WWII, and the number of causalties inflicted, dividing the former by the latter.. arrives at the figure of 10,000 bullets per casualty.

Which, to my mind gives hope - we really don't *like* to kill people. But the point in this context is filling the skies with sharp pointy things seems as valid today as it was hundreds of years ago.

Second point: I have upon occassion gotten to metal detect for civil war bullets et.al
I have found far more instances of unfired shells than fired ones.

Point? Beats me? Perhaps the fired ones disintegrated or were carried off in bodies. Or perhaps, under the pressure of firing they dropped a lot more slugs than they fired. Just interesting.

[lch]

I don't want to draw the attention away here, just a harmless retort...
We don't have stonemasons today that can even approach this level of craftsmanship on any scale even remotely approaching the construction of such an immense structure. If Khufu had ordered the Pyramid built on the day of his birth (no mean feat!) it is estimated that 250 tons of stone would have to be installed every day for his entire 60+ years of life, if they had expected it to be complete in time for his death.
I'll concur with Sombre here. It isn't that we can't, it's that nobody really bothers. People back then weren't Neanderthals, they just had different tools. Actually, I'd say give a Neanderthal the same tools and education as we have now and he should fit in without much trouble. And there are amazing feats done by people all over the centuries. There are people that do build things like they were back then and then use them to prove a point, like crossing the Atlantic with a boat made of reed.

Show me someone today who can perform this feat with only 5000 year old technology, and I will surely give you a cookie, sir.
Only one, hardly. A whole empire of loyal people under my command with some genius here or there in the ranks and an abundance of slaves, plus enough material to use up or trade away that it doesn't matter if all else is just wasteland afterwards, I guess I could show you something. What they had was hi-tech for their times, and they certainly were very organized.

How do you think will it look like in 5000 years? I don't know what it will be, but there will be something that people wonder about how we did it. That we actually managed to have space travel with this crude and dangerous technology, just shooting big barrels filled with hydrogen into the sky? And thus bringing humanity MTV, great-great-great-great grandfather of ALLNET or whatever.

[JimMorrison]

I like you lch, so I won't beat this horse like some people might. :p We've both said our piece on that, and I recognize the validity of both perspectives, even if you think I am just wrong. :D

I'll just say that I really didn't mean to imply that we can't perform these feats with similar or greater precision - using machines. Just that in many areas, stonemasonry as a prime example, we are dependent on the aid of those machines, and the prevalence (not existence) of such skills, is far less than in previous eras.

Oh, interesting thought to chew on as well - there are structures in Nepal that are hundreds of years old, constructed only of raw timbers, hay, and mud.

I don't doubt that the modern era will leave artifacts behind, but I would think they will be interesting, rather than amazing. See Antikythera.

Okay okay, but I didn't beat the horse, I only pet it. Nice dead horse, good boy. :angel

[Lingchih]

As Original Poster, I demand that this thread stop.

Unless it will get me some kind of record. In that case, post away.

[Agema]

Chrispederson is right, that as a general rule for missile fire, volume has been more important than accuracy. An obvious side effect would also be that the missile should be useful - arrows don't stop tanks.

The Russians did a study that led up to the development of the AK-47. They found that most decisive firefights occurred at under 100 metres range and possibly the major factor to determining the winner was who was firing more bullets. Similarly, in the age of muskets, the chances of hitting a specific target with a musket beyond a few dozen metres was very low. The idea was simply to get to about 100 metres or less and fire in the right general direction as fast as possible.

[lch]

As Original Poster, I demand that this thread stop.

Unless it will get me some kind of record. In that case, post away.
OP of the umpteenth X vs. Y thread award, maybe?

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Every post, and this does look more and more like a personal agenda - and a very emotionally biased one, at that. On that note, I do not choose a side in this argument, I believe that both tools of war have valid applications, and that one may excel where the other fails - thus my amusement with this entire argument. But still, I want to dance with you, Joe. :p

And by this reasoning you are emotionally involved as well through your amusement. ;)




You are gleefully missing the point. He said that working with less sophisticated equipment creates a better operator. The point boiled down to this - take a modern compound bow, and remove the sights and other "archer aids". Odds are, that the classically trained longbowman will operate that bow at a level superior to a modern archery student, who has only ever fired a bow with all of the modern accessories.

This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved. And how do you train said expert archer if the quality of equipment is not a given? Technology is a good thing. If you had it why wouldn't you use it?


Again, the theory behind the use of archers seemed to be "sheer # of pointy sticks flying through the air". Perhaps hastily crafted arrows are not suitable for target archery, or even for hunting. But they are just fine for firing at thousands of screaming soldiers. Most of them. You shrug off the bad arrows, because you have highly trained your archers to fire quickly and tirelessly, to saturate your field with projectiles.

This relies on purely on faith and the exactness required for even a semblance of accuracy over a short distance doesn't bear this out. You are assuming that they are "good enough" and assuming that again the archers are trained to the point where they shoot "tirelessly." Not so. Each successive shot of a bowmen will tend to get worse and worse as they tire and as they suffer from fear.




Oddly, you are also making an -assumption- here, that disagrees very widely with historical accounts, that only precisely and purposefully fired arrows are lethal. Most bow volleys were not fired at short range, and thus were not fired directly. They are lobbed in the general direction of a foe, with the assumption that enough of them will find meat, to justify the expense.

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows? Many of those countries like India had the longbow in their culture for many more years and refined to a point that England never took it. But despite the fact that said Imperialist powers were armored only in a brightly colored coat and armed with a weapon that was arguably slower than a crossbow, the bow shooting peoples did not prevail. If said fighting style of cohesive lateral missile weapons were not effective the outcome of that period of history would be very different.

And again when you look at other medieval battles you see without significantly hampering the assault and other factors England did not win. I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up. But despite your claims they could not cut down a mere 100 of those French in total from any distance. While they in turn were massacred. Focus and seizing the moment in a cohesive strike is far better than missile spam of dubious quality.



I don't know, come back to me when modern craftsmen can replicate the functional perfection of say, a Stradivarius, or the Great Pyramid. There are truly countless examples of physical feats that our predecessors performed at levels of proficiency that are as yet unmatched in modern day.

Simply not true for reasons that others explained.


I believe the entire argument up to now, has been the temporal ease with which the English were able to raise large numbers of longbowmen. The point being that perhaps 1000 crossbowmen in many cases are superior to 1000 longbowmen, but 2000 longbowmen with slightly inferior ability, and slightly inferior arrows, will create a level of saturation that will -possibly- achieve the desired effect more readily. There are 2 VERY important points about this. The first is that the historical accounts are that this period was one of great success for England, so we know that the Welsh longbow must be good for something. But also, we know that there is no true way to compare the performance of the available alternatives, because we're hundreds of years past the fact. So you are arguing theory (your heartfelt beliefs in the ability of the crossbow) versus the reality of the longbow's success.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.


Many animal parts were used for composite bows (cross or traditional), but composite crossbows were not used exclusively, nor was whale bone the industry standard. Seems that ox and other more commonly seen animals yielded most of the materials.

And even this brings the cost up. More materials mean more cost. The fact they even bothered with whale bone shows how important they thought they were and how they could not be "cheap."


I do not think that anyone argued that we can do things that more primitive men could not. The point is, they also could do things that WE cannot. Pride in our accomplishments will not bring back the depth and capability of pre-modern craftsmen.

Pride won't technology will.


Nunchuck skills?


Yea verily.


Where do you get your figures on expected medieval salaries? This is a pretty bold claim, and I think deserves a source.

Compared to several other claims made by other posters that go unquestioned? Not really but you didn't ask them now did you? No doubt in several places I've read but if you want an example from the horses mouth you can look at this old English wage roll cited here in this quaint old book

http://books.google.com/books?id=r7oRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=crossbowman+wages&source=bl&ots=rjFEL5xsp2&sig=4_JArZ0hTO_CQ9Wal4WQ6OB5VoY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA59,M1

"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve crossbow-men, and thirteen archers, for twenty-four days, each crossbow-man receiving by the day 4d and each archer 2d"

Archers made more than a standard foot mook generally and crossbows more than that as shown here.


Well it's a good thing that no one ever celebrated and revered master archers, or you might not have a point at all here.



Except that "Master of Crossbowmen" was also Master of Archers. My point is still there I'm sorry to inform you.


I have yet to see a weapon fire magic bullets, and I would agree that the longbow certainly does not do so. And neither does the crossbow.

I think your rigid thinking holds you back from the true reality of warfare (especially medieval warfare), that there is no right answer - there is only what works.

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

[Endoperez]

This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved.

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows?

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

[Agema]

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.
...

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

[Wrana]

To original question: :)
Usage of slings is mentioned in Tamerlan's memoires - at 15th century in Middle Asia - classical composite bow country.

[Thilock_Dominus]

Everyone knows what's best;

http://www.imageviper.com/displayimage/133044/0/catapult1.gif

[Tifone]

I think it would have been a GREAT idea. Load the little furry-feet.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Again you keep returning to aid in the form of aiming. Aid includes things such as weapon quality and the quality of the shot of an arrow not only the "sights" as someone mentioned before. Just because you take the hard way around doesn't mean the results are inherently better. If someone sings a beautiful opera standing up and someone seeks a very meh opera standing on his head juggling poodles with his feet who is the better singer? If you are judging by RESULTS the guy who standing wins. To judge poodle guy the winner you have to operate on faith that without the poodles the potential skill level would rise up to overcome the other singer. Longbowmen were stuck with their "poodles" from the very beginning and were worse for it because the RESULTS are going to be much much worse. There is no magical human potential that uplifts them.


Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

They are not really different because those powers fought nations who were more or less still in the previous age using previous age weaponry. The imperialist would not have prevailed if there was a distinct tactical on battlefield advantage. And if by knight you meant mounted troops with a powerful charge no they did not disappear in practice. Cavalry was still very much in use.


Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

The Hussite Crusades were a big deal. Everybody was spamming troops at them. Longbowmen were a major part of Charles the Bold's military identity to point where they are continually featured in depictions of his army.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

Addressed above.

[Wrana]

By the way, in the current discussion nobody is going to prove anything as both sides continually oversimplify and use "common sense" approach instead of comparing data. (And India example isn't going to prove anything as there was NO army in history that didn't conquer it at one time or another - except possibly Romans... :D)

[Adept]

Dominions has a good balance with crossbows and longbows (as well as regular bows too). I own crossbows and my wife has a longbow. I have absolutely no problem with the mechanics in Dominions.

[Dedas]

The crossbow touches me in bad places... But seriously this discussion is getting silly.

[Agema]

[
Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.
...

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

Addressed above.

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

[Humakty]

What everyone forgets about english victories in the early period of the hundred years war, is the english king of that time was a military genius compared to french one. He devised a clever plan to take care of french superiority in cavalry. While our king just charged forward.

So I don't think we can say english equipment of that time was superior to french one, no more we can say french equipment was superior to all others in 1800 due to the success of Napoleon.

Sun Tzu explains quite clearly in his book that military success is all about surprising your ennemy, and outwitting him, than just having bigger guns. The (all relative) failure of USA forces during some of their campains well shows that just having many high tech big guns is not enougth to ensure a victory. (I'm more precisely thinking about the campain of france in 1944 : they lost as many men than the germans, having total superiority in many domains (air, supplies...))

And someone said england was a better place to be a peasant in the medieval era than the continental countries. Well, I'm sure it is for this reason that England was the first country in europe to get rid of a dinasty. By chopping some crowned heads off.... :)

[Agema]

The English Civil War was a power struggle between the king and the gentry (= minor aristocracy). Peasants were neither here nor there, nor were they in the French Revolution.

I'd agree though that there's probably little evidence to say an English peasant was in a better position than a Continental peasant, although Western European peasants were better off than Eastern European serfs.

[Aezeal]

I think some one needs to contact a prof specialized in this field since it's obvious all points of view can get backed up by some web page or another :D

[Humakty]

I must agree that peasants were rarely part of anything political during medieval time. Too busy suffering maybe ?

The main problem with history is that it's all about theories, with little evidence. People never think about leaving fool prof evidence ahead of time. Rather the contrary, in fact. (if this message upsets anyone, I'm sorry, as usual...Blah,blah,blah... no intention to cause harm or...blah, blah,blah... not sue able in anyway.Thanks for reading.)

[Agema]

There's nothing like the web for allowing lots of people who don't know enough about something to spout opinions based on the webpage opinions of other people who don't know enough either. ;)

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

[Thilock_Dominus]

There's nothing like the web for allowing lots of people who don't know enough about something to spout opinions based on the webpage opinions of other people who don't know enough either. ;)

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

Catapult FTW!!1

[JimMorrison]

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

I said that like 60 posts ago. :p

Then a certain someone claimed that victory does not prove the usefulness of a tool. I firmly believe that if the tool that you have works, then it is good. You may wish you had an impact wrench, but you got the bolts loose, and that's all that matters in the end.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

If you mean purely technology wise yes but in usage and essential principles they are on the same line which is how they could coexist in essentially the same breath until the firearm was refined.


Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

This reasoning of yours is dubious and somewhat vague. There's nothing about the English medieval archer that would suggest they would surpass the Indian one on any of these aspects. If anything the Indian army had a more complex way of breaking down the chain of command.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

And if rate of shooting and the accuracy of those arrows were "good enough" as has been stated before by others this wouldn't be true because speed wise the musket is in the same ballpark as the crossbow and accuracy wise it is in many ways worse. That was what I was getting at.


(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

I'm not changing anything as I've mentioned Indians specifically before.



I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

Perhaps but one is very much more reliant of support and other factors than the other. I'll give you a hint it rhymes with "bong snow."


I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

Even when arguments do not include "instantly dominating" they have cue words that try to wheedle something special out of them. You are all not a hive mind and like I said when I post I try to be comprehensive and remember all that has been said before by other people and not just who I'm quoting at the moment. And if you remember I was speaking of this phenomenon existing elsewhere as well. There have been elements of weirdness, the original post's assertion, the assumptions made by certain individuals about how arrows can behave, three arrows in a bird before it hits the ground and all that. Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me. ;)

[JimMorrison]

Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me. ;)

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me. ;)

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not. Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing. Otherwise I could have dismissed anyone calling me a troll or saying I was biased against the English or unreasonable or other tricks without addressing the core of what they were saying in turn, no? Like I said speaking broadly and relating about what is seen in these versus things over the past if you don't fit the profile I am obviously not talking about you then am I?

And again like I said your consensus doesn't exist and if did it matters no more than "tonality" does. Such things are only failures in argument when it is all they have left.

[JimMorrison]

Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing.

Your entire argument, starting from your initial post, has been that crossbows are -superior- to longbows, and in fact you seem to want to argue every single point - thus implying that your viewpoint is that crossbows are superior to longbows in every conceivable way (except for cost!). Also, if you go back and reread your first post, it is openly insulting to people you have never had a running dialogue with. This has the result of making people who believe that "neither weapon is superior in all cases" want to disagree with you. It's not so much that you alienate people who already agree with you completely, it's that you alienate everyone who does NOT already agree with you completely, which is most people. Facts matter, but also approaching a disagreement in a manner that invites people to agree with you AND allows people to politely disagree without feeling foolish - is almost equally important, when communicating with other humans (we may not look like much on the internets, but I assure you, most of us ARE human).



Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not.

And again, it was made simply and abundantly clear that currently both weapons have equal usefulness, with the usefulness of slings (just mentioned for clarity) waning already in Middle Age, and the usefulness of short/long/composite bows beginning to wane in Late Age, as crossbows come into prominence.

One person makes a post wondering if longbows should be AP as well, and it seems that the discussion was showing a lack of need for a change, and a lack of any momentum pushing for a change. In fact, by the time you arrived, the discussion had transformed into one of the relative merits of different weapons and armor, and what really constitutes armor "piercing" damage in the first place.


Personally I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion, until you so rudely brought it back onto the original topic. Not necessarily saying it's best to range so far off topic (though I love it, myself), just that you kind of pooped the party, my friend.

[Scarlioni]

I'm new to these forums as I was really supposed to be figuring out how to load my pretender into my first mp game but have been distracted for three hours catching up on this thread. I just have to share my own opinions and knowledge on the subject.

Firstly I'd like to discuss slings. Slings are mentioned prominately by Homer, Xenophon, Ceaser and others. It was consdered a very effective weapon in the ancient world.
The term bullet comes from medievel french for lead sling stones. Lead sling stones being mentioned first by Xenophon in the Retreat of the Ten Thousand. I believe a lead sling stone could easily penetrate an unarmored persons body and crack skulls. Even against armored foes it was effective, the vaunted Spartans lost an engagement because sling armed skirmishers got on their flanks during a battle.

Indeed slings seem to be a weapon used exclusively by skirmishers, and not even professional soldiers at that. One of the advantages of the sling is it is one handed meaning that one could carry a shield. Additionally as mentioned previously in this thread, slings do not lend themselves to formation fighting. This combination of loose formation and shields meant that professional slingers were terribly effective against archers(reference Xenophon)and were used thusly by the Greeks and Persians. One has to consider that while Xenophon is only discussing the greeks in asia, everyone who faced massed archers from the egyptians to the chinese probably had professional slingers. Indeed I've seen Egyptian reliefs showing "chariot runners" armed with slings.

As mentioned earlier in the thread slings were probably favored for their utility more than firepower. Afterall one wouldn't use expensive lead bullets when bagging game, but more likely a well worn stone from a stream. That said, it's use by children and it's cheapness meant that in times of war there would be a rather large pool of proficient slingers about. Just give them some lead bullets and shields. Instead of a rabble you have a threat, albeit a threat with low morale. Even with just stones a bunch of thirteen year olds had to be dealt with.

The decline of the sling coincides with the rise of calvary. Before the rise of calvary massed formations aided in shock attack. After horses got big enough to ride soldiers had to remain in formation for survival.

An interesting variation of the sling is the staff sling. I know of no ancient reference of there use. According to wikipedia it does appear in ancient art. In the movie Apocalyto a staff sling is shown tossing a head sized rock about fifty feet. Of course it's hollywood but the scene made an impression on me.

In game terms (I never expect these changes to be applied) sling armed troops should fight in loose formation and given bonuses for dodging arrows. Actually this dodge should apply to any skirmishers in the game what ever they're armed with. The actual mechanics of both melee combat and ranged combat within dominions3 would make this quite accurately in my opinion.

The biggest shortcoming for sling armed (and javelin armed troops) in dominions3 is their battlefield performance. I've given up fielding these units. The short range and lack of precision are, in my opinion accurate. When I try to deploy them behind my infantry they do not advance towards the enemy with the infantry. This results in the before mentioned sling/javelin armed troops standing still and showering my own troops as much as the enemy. this really hurts since Mictlan's troops get hammered by friendly slings due to low armor as opposed to the enemy who actually wear armor.

You know what?! I just realized I might get the response I want if I place these troops on attack closest instead of fire closest orders. I shall experiment.

Almost all slingers should be given a shield, only none nation specific slingers would be without shields as they represent unprofessional youths armed with slings. The actual stats of the non nation specific slingers I agree heavily with. As I do with the slings of Mictlan. Abysia should gain AP for they're use of lead bullets?

Anything statement not backed by a specific reference is my own opinion and probably wrong.

My next post will be on bows.

[Scarlioni]

Bows used in war can be broken into two very broad categories. Composite bows and Longbows. Battlefield performance of both weapons is pretty much the same. Longbows had the advantage of being cheaper and easier to make, however pertty much everywhere but southeast asia (southern india, indo china, and the indonesian archapeligo) the composite bow displaced the longbow.

Predating the composite bow, the longbow required good hardwood, abundent in SE asia. The longbow was much more resistent to moisture and heat. This probably explains it's retention in SE asia.

Composed primarily of horn and sinew the composite bow was more expensive and time consuming to manufacture. However it was shorter, handier, and the materials for it's construction were readily availble everywhere (Had beef for dinner? Favorite horse just died?). The rise of chariot and later cavalry probably fueled the developemnt of the shorter composite bow. Both the persian and egyptian empires of antiquity were built on the backs of this weapon.

The classic use in warfare was as the "arrow storm." This is the classic strategy of firing as many arrows as possible at the opposing force attempting to "blot out the sun." In this strategy arrows would not be considered armor piercing, indeed the wounds inflicted by arrows used in this manner would hardly even be considered life threatening (unless like Harold at Hastings you catch one in the eye). That is unless they hadn't been poisoned.

Poisoned arrows are mentioned in the some of the earliest writings. The Scythian hero Heracles both used arrow poison and died from it. Herodotus' reciepe for Scythian arrow poison is as follows.

Dig a hole
Insert freshly dead venomous snake into hole
Defecate into hole
Cover hole and wait a week.
Coat your arrow heads in the resulting slime

This was common right up until the introduction of gun powder. Standing under an arrow storm in armor with a shield meant you were likely to survive the barrage. If you so much as even got scratched you'd have wanted to seek immediate medical attention before infection and gangrene set in. This was a bummer for morale.

In the Bayeux tapestry Norman archers are shown with their arrows in the dirt. The only reason to do this is because you don't want to defecate into your quiver. Horse archers weren't able to do this, having to draw their arrows from quivers, and no one ever complained that it slowed their rate of fire.

All war bows were able to peirce mail up to about 10 meters if wielded by a professional archer. This wasnt seen as an issue. After all this was what shields were for. Plate armors were introduced to combat early firearms.

Now the Welsh longbow was something special altogether. It was clearly a superior weapon system in the cattle rustling/raid/reprisal raid that charcaterized warfare in the absence of the nation state. Remember the Normans were originally vikings that settled in France and knowing a good idea when they saw it adopted cavalry. Upon encountering the Welsh longbow the decendents of the Normans abandoned the cavalry charge in favor of the longbow.

Someone said that the longbow was cheap. Not true. The English were importing yew staves from the continent by the reign of Edward the IV for the construction of longbows. The poeple of England were paying their taxes in arrows throughout the hundred years war. The use of the longbow died out because the yew became an endangered species thorught Europe because of English demand. No other wood would do for the english longbow.

Another point made in the thread was that bodkin points were made of hard iron and would shatter upon impact. This would have been seen as a plus since it would prevent your opponent from firing it back at you. The romans used soft iron in the constrution of their pilums (javelins) so that if they hit a shield the weapon would deform preventing their opponents from throwing the weapon back at the romans.

One of the biggest mysteries concerning ancient archery I know of comes from the obelisk describing Ramses 'victory' at Karnack. The Egyptians are supposed to have fired reed arrows 800 meters. How does one fire an arrow made of reeds? Some sort of sabot system maybe? Take a regular arrow shaft, split in half, cut a groove in the middle and place the reed there. With a good tail wind maybe you'll get 800 meters out of it? Would be a good harassing weapon if nothing else.

I share my knowledge of croosbows tomorrow.

[Endoperez]

In the Bayeux tapestry Norman archers are shown with their arrows in the dirt. The only reason to do this is because you don't want to defecate into your quiver. Horse archers weren't able to do this, having to draw their arrows from quivers, and no one ever complained that it slowed their rate of fire.

I've read that arrows were stuck into the dirt because that way they were more readily available. I don't know how long it takes to pull an arrow from a quiver, but for long arrows it's faster to stick them to the ground and grab the closest one. I'm not sure how long the arrows for a longbow would be, but if they're long enough the archer wouldn't even have to bow down that much.

Horse archers' fire rate wouldn't have mattered as much, because they didn't do the "arrow storm" thing AFAIK. Weren't horse archers all about hit-and-run: riding near the enemy force with an arrow ready, letting it loose, and then riding out of their archers' range and readying another arrow?

Also, horse archers couldn't use longbows because they were too long. The longer arrows could also be slower to draw from a quiver.

[Scarlioni]

For a longbow with it's (presumably, I actully don't know) longer arrows placing them in the dirt at your feet would be quicker than using a quiver. However this would only apply to set peice battles and prepared ambushes. The Normans were using compound bow at hastings and the bayeaux tapestry shows them putting their arrows in the dirt.

I believe the first mention of the Welsh longbow is from the Peterbough Chronicle. The Norman's were mentioning the bows of the Welsh as something special upon they're very first encounters with it. I think I read once that most bows could penetrate mail at 30 feet the Welsh/English longbow could perice mail at 50 feet.

I've only ever heard the claim that pathologists can identify English longbowmen because of their bones. I've never heard this stated about any other archers anywhere any time. The draw on those things must have been huge.

As for horse archers and arrow storms. Oh yes they did! That was the point! Imagine two thousand horse archers charging you, rank upon rank of them, and firing arrows as they charged. The arrows fired from further away coming in at high angles while arrows fired from closer at lower angles impacting at near the same time. At about thirty feet from your line they suddenly wheel away carrocle style performing the parthian shot as they ride away. Once safely away from you the horse archers would reload their quivers and do it agian and again and again. When you couldn't take it anymore, to busy hiding behind your shield and not expecting it, they'd not wheel away. Whipping out their sabres at the last instant and charge home. Also horse archers could ride around your shield wall on the flanks pouring fire into your formations ala old holywood westerns with the indians riding in circles around the wagonberg.

The magyars smashed numerically superior armies again and again using this, only to have the mongols return the favor a few centuries on.

I've seen a Magyar composite bow. It was truly a work of art. The waterproofing was snakeskin.

I'll write my opinions on crossbows tomorrow night. Someone started a thread on pikes and I definately have to get in on that ;)

[chrispedersen]

Someone said that the longbow was cheap. Not true. The English were importing yew staves from the continent by the reign of Edward the IV for the construction of longbows. The poeple of England were paying their taxes in arrows throughout the hundred years war. The use of the longbow died out because the yew became an endangered species thorught Europe because of English demand. No other wood would do for the english longbow.

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

For these and other reasons england developed the royal forests, and royal forestry laws - to the extant that at some point it was punisheable by death fell trees in these forests.

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

[Scarlioni]

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

I didnt know yew was a preferred wood in ship building. Where can I learn more?

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

I thought the ancient greeks had those too, but apparently I was thinking of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes


The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

I've read similar statements concerning the ammunition fired at the siege of Constantinople but I thought it was launched by something similar to this
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&usg=__1_0QTXz9OuewYaGtTw72xWe1PN4=&h=442&w=800&sz=623&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=jKgZz1bYeJO6LM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDardanelles%2Bgun%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN

[Agema]

Some bows have been capable of extreme ranges, but I think we could assume they were specialised for the purpose, maybe for medieval bragging rights. Your average skilled battlefield archer with a powerful long or composite bow would be unlikely to exceed 300-400 metres.

[JimMorrison]

It was my understanding that they, of course, were for specialized use, referred to by terms such as War Bow and Siege Bow (in various languages). Their use (AFAIK) was similar to mortar fire today - indirect bombardment across valleys or over walls to harass and demoralize an opponent that is trying to maintain a defensive position.

[chrispedersen]

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

I didnt know yew was a preferred wood in ship building. Where can I learn more?

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

I thought the ancient greeks had those too, but apparently I was thinking of this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes


The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

I've read similar statements concerning the ammunition fired at the siege of Constantinople but I thought it was launched by something similar to this
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c.png&usg=__1_0QTXz9OuewYaGtTw72xWe1PN4=&h=442&w=800&sz=623&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=jKgZz1bYeJO6LM:&tbnh=79&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDardanelles%2Bgun%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den% 26sa%3DN


The mongolian bow I was referring to was fired lying down, using the feet against the bow, and drawing back with the muscles of the arm and abdomen.

I saw it in a korean war museum - along with a replica of the turtle - a boat with metal plating done hundreds of years before the merrimac. I haven't found any online references to it.

For more usual bows, Ottoman Sultan Selim III was once witnessed to have fired an arrow from a Turkish composite bow an amazing distance of 889metres (2917feet) though its effective range was considerably less.

As for the dardanelles guns - no, I wasn't speaking about guns, but actual trebuchets or catapults - the word has different meanings depending on where in the world you are.

[Maerlande]

I hope I'm not bothering anyone by repeating something from earlier in the thread. But I did a quick read and didn't see any of this.

I am an archer as a hobby. And a mechanical engineer. Here are a few bits of the physics of a bow.

1) The killing power of an arrow and also it's armour piercing ability is a function of the kinetic energy. Which is mass times velocity squared.

2) The kinetic energy imparted into an arrow or bolt is not a linear function of the draw strength. It is actually closer to the area of the draw from bow tip to tip versus the area of a strung bow not drawn. Therefore, the taller the bow the more energy for the same draw weight. So, simply put, a 100 lb composite bow 4 feet tall puts less energy into the arrow than a 100 lb long bow.

3) Cross bows have VERY short draws and generally very small bows. 36 inch is quite big. Longer and they are unweildy to shoot through crenelations. These two combined mean that crossbows must have much greater draw strength to put the same kinetic energy into the bolt.

4) Crossbow bolts have less mass than arrows. Both are usually the same diameter and made of much the same material. But arrows are 2-3 times longer.

5) In bow hunting, a 50 lb regular recurve bow is acceptable by law in my province. To hunt with a crossbow you must use 150 lb minimum. This is due to the clearly superior penetration of bows for comparable draw. Lighter crossbows are banned because the have insufficient penetration.

6) One clear advantage to using a crossbow to hunt is it may be carried drawn. Drawing a bow can be noisy enough to spook the prey.

I am also a recreationist. Our club uses draw weight to define acceptable sizes of bows and crossbows for combat archery. Bows may not be more than 30 lb. Crossbows may be 60. Having been hit many times by these using blunts, I can clearly say that a 30 lb japanese long bow hits MUCH harder than any recurve or crossbow within those rules.

As an archer there are some very interesting effects of bow shape. Recurve bows draw hard initially and remain fairly hard to hold drawn. Long bows are quite easy to start to draw but the weight increase rapidly at full draw. They are extremely hard to hold drawn.

I typically shoot a 55 lb recurve bow for traditional target archery. I'm a very large man and quite strong but I can only hold full draw for about 10 seconds. However, I can shoot 6 arrows in 30 seconds quite easily. It's not as accurate as a bit slower, but I can hit the target and score fairly well. My accuracy does not improve much by shooting slowly. With my large bow, my arm shakes and I lose accuracy if I hold it.

So, the real physical effects of bows and crossbows suggest some answers to these questions. English and Japanese longbows in the hands of a strong and skilled archer have very high penetration. The only comparable crossbows are the crank type. The simple goatsfoot crossbows that load moderately quickly have no where near the penetration. And that's simple physics. Even the 150 lb horseback composites typically have less penetration than a long bow.

PS: The thugs informed me I misread the date. I'm a year too late.

[Lingchih]

Wow, you resurrected this thread Maerlande? Well, your post was good, and informative.

[Maerlande]

Well, I didn't really mean to resurrect a dead thread. Someone made a mention of it on IRC and I saw a place to comment with some science. But I misread the date of the last post :) I guess I still don't quite live in 2010.

[militarist]

Sorry for my English, it's not native :)

"Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?"

That's a nice legend, but reality can be quite far from our understanding of what really happened there. There were numerious scintific reconstructions - scientists found examples of iron, which was used in french armors, and arroheads of arrows of longbowmens. And, having estimated arrow speed (using special cameras, and devices) , sent by professional archer, they made experiment - English arrows with iron quality which was used during this fight against french armor of that time. And arrows when were hitting armor in most of cases didn't pierce it.
Of course, if there are a lot of arrows, and french knights were not covered ideally with it, and there we different armors, probably.. but they came to different theory which, by their belief explains what happened there.

The main difference between English forces and French was in a very high amount of long bowmen (which were just twice cheaper than footmen). These guys were not really protected a lot, were in cloth boots, some shirts...something very far from heavy armored french men. Of course there were footmen also, but proportions.

The field was chosen by English strategists, basing on this difference.
It was a very nerrow field, where French just could not attack from many siddes, and had to send all army through quite narrow place. It was rain, a lot of mud. A lot of French knights, trying to get through narrow part of the field, and shower of English arrows, which added to this mess. French, heavy armored knights, just struck in mood by their heavy iron boots.When you are in a mess of bodies and mood, you are heavy, and your heavy boots struck in a land, swampy from rain, you are quite limited..English longbowmen, with their cloth boots and no heavy staff, were much more mobile, and just more effective, killing them, just by stabbing their long knifes into faces and weak places of armors of the French.. Then huge amount of French just gave up. And, king of England, just executed them all because he didn't believe that he has already won and expected more French to come and to free his numerious prisoners.

I don't remember the film, where all this research was explained. Some made in UK, for sure.

So, long bows have quite cool reputation, but, really , it is based more on this battle, and in this battle it was strategy and weather, who brought victory to England, and long bows were maybe third factor,or 4th, 5th..etc.

[Maerlande]

Sounds like the analysis done by John Keagan in "The Face of Battle"

[rdonj]

Sigh. Old topic is old, dead, beaten into the ground and trampled upon by dozens of reanimated longdead horsemen. Maerlande, you must die now :(.

[Maerlande]

Well I told you I misread!!! But Trumanator threatened me with dire consequences if I deleted my post. So all I could do in fairness was admit I misread the date.

[Maerlande]

Besides, you are just trying to pump your post count!

[Maerlande]

Which of course I would never dream of doing.

[rdonj]

Trumanator is a bad, naughty boy. He will also be punished. I hardly care about my post count, if I did I wouldn't hit the edit button so much :P

[Squirrelloid]

Sorry for my English, it's not native :)

"Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?"

That's a nice legend, but reality can be quite far from our understanding of what really happened there. There were numerious scintific reconstructions - scientists found examples of iron, which was used in french armors, and arroheads of arrows of longbowmens. And, having estimated arrow speed (using special cameras, and devices) , sent by professional archer, they made experiment - English arrows with iron quality which was used during this fight against french armor of that time. And arrows when were hitting armor in most of cases didn't pierce it.
Of course, if there are a lot of arrows, and french knights were not covered ideally with it, and there we different armors, probably.. but they came to different theory which, by their belief explains what happened there.

The main difference between English forces and French was in a very high amount of long bowmen (which were just twice cheaper than footmen). These guys were not really protected a lot, were in cloth boots, some shirts...something very far from heavy armored french men. Of course there were footmen also, but proportions.

The field was chosen by English strategists, basing on this difference.
It was a very nerrow field, where French just could not attack from many siddes, and had to send all army through quite narrow place. It was rain, a lot of mud. A lot of French knights, trying to get through narrow part of the field, and shower of English arrows, which added to this mess. French, heavy armored knights, just struck in mood by their heavy iron boots.When you are in a mess of bodies and mood, you are heavy, and your heavy boots struck in a land, swampy from rain, you are quite limited..English longbowmen, with their cloth boots and no heavy staff, were much more mobile, and just more effective, killing them, just by stabbing their long knifes into faces and weak places of armors of the French.. Then huge amount of French just gave up. And, king of England, just executed them all because he didn't believe that he has already won and expected more French to come and to free his numerious prisoners.

I don't remember the film, where all this research was explained. Some made in UK, for sure.

So, long bows have quite cool reputation, but, really , it is based more on this battle, and in this battle it was strategy and weather, who brought victory to England, and long bows were maybe third factor,or 4th, 5th..etc.

So, one of the major effects of longbows at Agincourt was killing the horses. Now, admittedly, the French did try to charge into the narrow approach to the English position, which was pretty stupid. Given the press of knights, a dead horse throwing its rider down to the ground would have resulted in a likely dead knight as he was trampled by his fellows.

You're wrong about the reason for executing prisoners. Because the French so vastly outnumbered the English, the English did not have the man-power to adequately guard all the prisoners they had captured. So when the French made an attempt to free them, either there was confusion as to who was fighting and who wasn't (leading to a lot of slain prisoners), or the commander ordered prisoners who could not be adequately guarded slain to avoid prisoners being freed and rejoining the battle. It certainly wasn't a pre-emptive move - it was a response to an attempt to free the prisoners.

[Sombre]

Dude this whole thread is ridiculous everyone knows that longbows are awesome and ruled the world and crossbows are for peasants and sucked and japanese people fought with dual katanas like in that Tom Cruise documentary.

[Humakty]

Yeah, and Tom Cruise also shows in his documentary that the average american gunslinger is better at swordmanship than a samurai having trained all his life.PURE FACT.

It is also well known crossbows could barely hurt an englishman, 'cause god walks with them.

[militarist]

Sombre, as for executing prisoners, It is not my analysis, it's what these researchers came to, and they can base their theory either on some historical evidence, or not. But It is hard for me to imagine they would invent such idea like reason of execution, without any evidences. Though, I don't know the reality. French and English historians can see reasoning of execution quite differently. It's quite normal in history. We know the "truth" mostly from those nations who could write better or who won :)

As for training of longbowmen...I don't really think it takes years to train, at least if we speak about English longbowmen. Otherwise they wouldn't cost twice less then swordsmen (it's historical fact from records of vassals , who supplied their people to English army for this battle.)

There is a big difference between training a sportsmen, who needs to shoot with high level of precision, and squad of archers, whose task is much simpler - just position the bow in a proper angle to horizon and use certain amount of force to deliver an arrow on a distance which he is commanded to shout. Though it requires force, it is not real "targeting" there. You are just taking part in doing shower from arrows, not shooting into the apple on a head of a princess.

[Trumanator]

Well, longbowmen were much lower class than most swordsmen, and their equipment was also far less. The "training" bit was actually more an accident of history than anything else. A yeoman tradition of using the Longbow had spread through England and Wales, producing an excellent crop of soldiers right when England needed them.

[Sombre]

Sombre, blah blah blah blah blah

Wrong guy :]

[sector24]

Sorry for contributing to the thread necromancy, but I have to disagree; it does take a lifetime of practice to develop the muscles to draw a heavy bow. I've been doing archery for 3 years. I'm 5'7'' (possibly tall compared to the English of the day) and my draw weight is 38 lbs. A measly 38 lbs. I could not imagine how many hours a day I would have to practice to get up to even 50 lbs. Anecdotal evidence perhaps, but you can't just say using longbows is some easy thing.

More likely the reason archers weren't paid as much is because ranged fighting wasn't as "honorable" a pursuit as hand to hand combat. Despite its effectiveness it was simply looked down upon as an inferior practice and would not command a respectable rate of pay.

[Aleph]

Read about five pages of this and had to go, wanted to post:

Agincourt, AFAIK, was partly won due to a simple difference in philosophy. The French thought that they were fighting a chivalric war and could expect to be captured and ransomed back if defeated, while the English were well and truly in enemy territory and took to murdering the surrendered French knights with daggers and sledgehammers. It's like if one side of a football game all came to the field with brass knuckles and knives and there were no refs to call foul on it... you'd expect that team to do quite well until the other side caught on. This is a problem you won't have in Dominions - there's no honorable surrender.

Furthermore, AFAIK the French didn't even bother deploying their crossbowmen at Agincourt. Certainly, they might have fared better if they had.

Finally, I believe the longbow was never outlawed for use against other Christians by the Vatican, which tells you that the crossbow was doing something right.

[Lingchih]

Please, stop now. Or we'll summon the ghost of MachineGunJoe back.

[Ironhawk]

Bump

[BigDaddy]

I am certain that the ancient crossbow was inferior, I've even seen such on crossbow websites. It was because they didn't have materials that flexed enough to make the bows out of. Modern x-bows flex like crazy. I'm surprised that was an archer earlier saying that thought a long bow was more powerful than crossbow. I assume that includes modern crossbows, which seem to be very sophisticated. But, yes, inferior to a compound bow, I can honestly believe.

[Sombre]

I like to call modern crossbows 'guns'. They are extremely powerful - able to punch through solid wafer at extreme range. There are records of 'guns' so powerful that they can actually fire through more than one wafer, though I assume these are specialised cases.

[vfb]

Wafers? I eat those for breakfast. Rowr!

[Sombre]

Clearly you're some kind of wafer fanboi.

I always check the forums of a game before buying to make sure it isn't being ruined by wafer fanbois. Stop trying to ruin the game!

[13lackGu4rd]

Finally, I believe the longbow was never outlawed for use against other Christians by the Vatican, which tells you that the crossbow was doing something right.

the fact that the longbow was not banned like the crossbow has nothing to do with the longbow being inferior to the crossbow... the crossbow was banned because it was used against honorable knights and pierced through their armor. that's what crossbows do best, pierce thick armor at short range. longbows on the other hand had a much greater range and were not really aimed at piercing thick knight armor, nor firing at knights from short range. the longbow gave you a huge tactical advantage, and changed the way you deployed your forces if you had longbows in your army. while the crossbows just gave you more firepower via mass, and it was effective against knight's armor.

honestly, comparing longbows and crossbows is almost like comparing apples to oranges, they're 2 very different weapons with different goals(in reality, not so much in dominions...).

[BigDaddy]

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.

[RamsHead]

If you outlaw crossbows, only outlaws will have crossbows!

[BigDaddy]

If I understand the position of more reasonable gun control people, they look at supply side problems, especially disasters like the cold war dumping of guns across the world like we were salting fries.

So, they want to restrict some sort of access to firearms, especially in places were no everyone has a gun.

You have to think carefully about this, because when the Church banned them, they almost assuredly had a good reason (they've been teaching philosophy for a very long time). If there weren't a lot of crossbows then banning them would be a good decision.

I don't have a price comparison of a crossbow and a bow or longbow at the time.

[chrispedersen]

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.


sun tzu said that casualties are the square of the effective ratios of troops. And roughly he was correct.

So for example if you outnumber your enemy 3:2, your casualties will be of the ratio 4:9.

These rules of war were later expanded on by Liddell Hart; generally an interesting and controversial guy.

[Maerlande]

I promised rdonj and Lingchih I wouldn't propagate this thread. I lied.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a numbnuts and a tit. So there!!! Cause I'm right and you are wrong.

Now that's a classic internet forum argument. I'm great and you suck.

[BigDaddy]

What you're really supposed to do is assume we are all your enemies, and then twist our words, while simultaneously being extremely critical of any errors, ussually precieved errors, or ambibuities, and magnify them into us being idiots, often, wether we agree with you or not.

[Maerlande]

I've given this more consideration. Sadly that was a waste of my time because it appears that most of you didn't understand a thing I said. Who gives a rat's behind whether a crossbow was banned by the church. It's not like people didn't do many things banned by the church. For example, the fornication of boys by priests is no allowed by the church but that sure didn't stop it.

The simple engineering is that a longbow has very GOOD penetration of armour. And a horking big crossbow also has very good penetrations.

However, a longbow can be fired as fast as it can be drawn. A high pull crossbow takes longer. Anyone can do the math.

And eat my shorts. I'm right and you are wrong. Since I'm always right.

[Gregstrom]

And... crossbows were used by William Tell, who was Swiss. And Switzerland has a border with Austria, where Hitler was born. Therefore crossbows are tainted with Hitler-ness, and evil.


And Godwin is satisfied, and we can all go home.

[Maerlande]

Oh I love that logic Gregstrom. Fine stuff.

[13lackGu4rd]

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.

if you're talking about a standard battle than you'll probably be right. however in battles such as Agincourt for examples, the Longbow really shined. the thing about the Longbow is that it has tremendous range(even more than the early muskets) it also has very good accuracy due to the sheer amount of training required to become a Longbow archer. now, in Agincourt for example the British exploited their range advantage to its fullest, firing at the French from very far away, and digging up into defensive positions with poles sticking from the ground to protect said Longbow archers from the Frankish Knight's charge.

as for the Chinese, in China the situation was a bit different as in Europe. China was the only "civilized" military at its area, the rest were tribesmen or "barbarians" as the Greeks would call them. said tribesmen were superb horsemen, and were very capable of using bows as well, but only had access to simple weaponry, at least until the secrets of gunpowder were leaked to them via China... thus the Chinese repeating Crossbow was the perfect weapon to break the technological stalemate between China and its tribal enemies, who eventually used everything the Chinese used. also without access to long range weapons(say Longbows) and plentiful cavalry and horse archers, the repeating Crossbow's lack of range was not as crucial, thus its superb firing rate gave it a huge advantage.

[BigDaddy]

I've given this more consideration. Sadly that was a waste of my time because it appears that most of you didn't understand a thing I said. Who gives a rat's behind whether a crossbow was banned by the church. It's not like people didn't do many things banned by the church. For example, the fornication of boys by priests is no allowed by the church but that sure didn't stop it.

The simple engineering is that a longbow has very GOOD penetration of armour. And a horking big crossbow also has very good penetrations.

However, a longbow can be fired as fast as it can be drawn. A high pull crossbow takes longer. Anyone can do the math.

And eat my shorts. I'm right and you are wrong. Since I'm always right.

The Catholic Church was essentially half the law back in the day, all across europe, so, if they wrote a law about this or that, considering what it was written for is like wondering why France wrote a particular law, except for its far reacing influence, which makes the consideration more important. Most 'general' legal systems are strongly influenced by working with and against the Catholic Church over the past 2000 years.

It was tough for Joe Blow to kill a professional officer of the state with a long bow, but not so much with a crossbow. I think this exact fact is the one that gives the crossbow the less than accurate depiction of the x-bow as extra powerful... When clearly the long bow was similar but larger and flex more, so it was almost assuredly more powerful (today, we might be able to find a fancy high speed energy release material).

[Knai]

I'm not convinced about the slingers really. That wiki has obviously been made by someone fond about sling (as will the wiki's of all weapons probably) but to me.. I look at it practically.

In midevil times shepards had slings in wide use, IF they where so much better overall (better range etc) then they would never have started using the more expensive arrows.

I think the main point of it is that sling bullets aren't AP..

Slings actually did out range bows, and had a comparable rate of fire. As for armor, plate was really effective against either of them, and mail and lighter were less effective against slings, due to the layers of padding; the only reason Agincourt went down as it did was because the french cavalry were trying to ride over thick mud, and horses don't get along well with thick mud. Then the horses started dying, and the people had to walk through thick mud while getting pelted, and by the time they actually reached the archers they had taken a bunch of minor bruises through the armor, fallen off a horse, and acquired a bunch of mud. Against troops that were basically fresh. And this is assuming that they didn't fall down in the mud and have lousy vision and excess weight at this point as well.

However, Bows have an obvious advantage. They are much easier to aim, and if you need to do anything fancier than put a stone in a general direction with a snapping sound (which will direct animals, and scare others off), you are going to be spending a long time practicing. Where the bow is an aim then shoot weapon, the sling is an aim while shooting weapon. Making arrows, particularly fletching, is not as demanding as previous posts state, and they could be cranked out, although not anywhere near the level one could do that with a sling or gun bullet. The difference in training needed to get accuracy is immense.

Furthermore, a slinger requires more space than an archer to operate a weapon. While it out ranges the bow, the ranks will naturally stretch further back quickly (tripled or so), and the effective range of the weapon isn't good enough to mitigate that, as the difference in range isn't very pronounced until you get to people who are very good in both weapons, as the slings range is highly determined by skill level, and the skill level needed for the maximum range is absurd at a troop training level. Meaning that, in a mass troop situation, the slings effective range is nullified, and it is a simple matter of weapon and ammunition cost against training time.

Which brings me to my next point. Longbows are hard to acquire, so ex soldiers and such couldn't get a hold of them easily, and be a threat. Manufacturing is enough of a process to make it difficult to get high powered bows as well. By contrast, the sling is easy to manufacture, either the two strings and a pouch design, or various woven designs. Leather and wool are not hard to acquire, and you really don't want recruits who are not full time soldiers (which they wouldn't have been in the medieval era) having a weapon like that.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.
Inaccurate. Or rather, inaccurate some of the time. A 45 degree angle with have the longest horizontal distance, although that is obviously modified by wind. If you lift it past that, or not quite to that then range decreases, but going from 0 degrees up to 45 is constant increase.

[Knai]

Bows and Crossbows are being addressed here, to keep posts reasonable. Also, I can't seem to find the edit button.

Crossbows were more powerful and could pierce armor better than bows, and were more expensive. There were immensely complicated machines, and crossbows weren't among them, but at this point standardized parts didn't exist, so each crossbow had to be built by hand, which made them more expensive than bows. And just like bows, they arc. Meaning that as a sniper weapon, or when one actually needs to go through armor, or, given less training, you just need to shoot one guy and take him out, this is probably the better weapon. For mass battles these were less efficient, although a crossbow volley from close range would be devastating, so a few ranks of crossbowmen up front who made sure to fire in concert (and in a line, since that makes armor piercing that much easier, as everything talked about but the sling bullet loses way too much power to puncture armor effectively if arced significantly) would make the front ranks that much nastier. This just means that you don't have the melee types, or the melee types have the crossbows, and assumes a high archer battlefield, which stops being effective against cavalry on a sunny day without mud unless you have something like a river with a bridge, and troops that can hold the bridge. Pike contingents aren't bad here, but a spear and shield formation similar to the phalanx would be effective as well.

Bows had a higher rate of fire, which made up for quite a lot. Now, to address one particular point that had been made. Arrows would flex significantly when fired, but they would then straighten out and fly straight. The flexing didn't impact accuracy, and was not a problem. Similarly, on bows having one point to draw to. This is accurate for the modern compound bow, and there are distances at which it is much easier to aim than others, but you have a decent variety of draw lengths with any ancient bow.

Now, arrows flexing needs to be looked at a little more, which brings up another relevant weapon. The atlatl. It threw darts that were basically long arrows, and they bent massively, but still straightened out and flew straight. The flexing of the darts was not an issue, and just like the arrows you need a very high speed camera to see this. Both weapons could be very accurate. Now, the bow out-ranges the atlatl significantly, but the atlatl has its place. A nice hunting weapon, always readied, and probably better than just a javelin, although it takes more training. Mictlan should have these, but sadly doesn't. In both cases, with these weapons, armor is a lot more effective than against crossbows, but the bow isn't bad for sheer volume, and the longbow is among the best, not the English bow specifically, but any high draw weight bow which wasn't made in a really shoddy fashion.

Staff slings were also omitted from the above post. They work completely differently from hand slings, and have a lower effective range, but are made for heavier projectiles. These are probably closer to a crossbow in armor effectiveness, as the projectiles had a lot of force. Unlike the sling though, you could not use a shield, although you wouldn't with a sling as it makes reloading difficult, and screws up many styles of aim.


All of this addresses massed formations. Things change rather dramatically without them, which means anywhere cavalry isn't effective. In a large, mountainous area slings are suddenly very efficient, crossbows are upped because you can shoot down a ledge without retaliation and deal with a less significant problem from armor, and the atlatl remains a big game weapon.

[rdonj]

Alas, this thread was started quite some time ago. Endoperez hasn't posted in several months, and aezeal even longer. They may never read your post :P

As for the edit button, this forum only lets you edit posts for a maximum of 30 minutes after posting them. Except for the first post of a thread, which can be edited forever.

[BigDaddy]

I've never had a problem with necroing thread that are like this one. If someone want to discuss this type of thing, this can just as easily be the clearinghouse of information.

I am not a bow expert, but it is not difficult, for me at least, to understand penetration as a mixture between projectile mass and velocity and strike area, which yields power delivered per unit area. If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy. This means that loading the projectile with energy is a function of some kind, and not just a gross number as in you get such and such joules or watt/hours or whatever, per pull (also, the last inches of pull seem to load more, so longer arrows seem to have more power).

So, most bows of whatever type should have fine penetration.

There was not a great deal of variety in materials for bows in medieval times, and crossbows were generally not 5 feet wide, as a long bow might be tall. From what I have seen, long bows also flexed quite a bit more. This would generally seem to favor the long bow for loading capacity over the crossbow, even if it take more weight to pull back the string. Modern crossbows, though still often narrow, flex like crazy, to a point I've never seen anyone do with a bow. Compound bows still seem superior however. Though it's likely there is a comparative crossbow variety as well. Most compound bows are composite of some sort and so are crossbows, but compound bows seem to be more wood like, whereas crossbows seem to be more like metal springs. I haven't a clue which is necessarily more powerful, becaue the compound bow is generally much larger, and crossbow remains nocked. Thus, there is not much of a clue from user interface. My assumption is that at the high end of penetration in the modern world are sophisticated compound crossbows that are quite large and are pulled back with a mechanical device. This seems like the most reason and sane way a person could load a projectile with as much force as can be reasonably accomplished.

But what about slings? I looked around at sling information, and it seems that slings remained effective for a very long time. Even now they have their harrasment value with certain irregulars. They use a blunt object, so the object needs to be very heavy or very dense. Indeed, when there was metal armor, the slings used lead shot, which was quite deadly, on the Romans.

However, the ranks of slingers dwindled, and this is likely to be due to skill and culture limitations. I've never used a sling, but they aren't and obvious as a bow, and certainly no were near as obvious as a crossbow.

In ancient Israel, they have found a lot of sling stones, some quite large (fist size!). There is some evidence that the Ancient people of the region used slings to achieve great results (also explaining why other nations came up against them with calvalry and chariots). One -could- assume that sling use was a sort of national pass time in the region. This would explain the various size and sling projectiles as well, and the skill involved. Contemporary persons skilled with the sling are quite effective and accurate. I would concede that such a situation could easily be like that with English Longbowmen, only, it seems, on a grander scale, as all the peasantry use the sling. I can picture granny giving the little ones their first sling lesson, because the men are to busy seeing who can sling the 3 pound monster stone the farthest.

[TwoBits]

When debating bows, x-bows, and/or slings, be sure to keep in mind the effectiveness of the Cretan archers. With their pyromancers in tow to cast Flaming Arrows, their composite bows could slay Carthaginians or Cyclopses with equal ease! No wonder the Romans used Cretan mercenaries in great numbers when they conquered Marverni and C'tis.

Yeah, sure, the Balearic Island slingers had their day against unarmored Spanish barbarians unsupported by wyverns, but when used as mercs in the east against the Seleucids and their flying elephants (courtesy of Seleucid Oreiads of course), well, they didn't do so hot there, did they?

And you know, all that's a historical fact, cause I read all about it in the Lives of the Pantakrators, by Plutarch, the famous necromancer.

[sector24]

If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy.

This is not really the case in modern archery. The characteristics of the bow determines what kind of arrow you can fire. If you try to shoot an arrow too heavy or too light for your bow, it will not fly straight. Frequently when your arrows are fishtailing (left/right) or porpoising (up/down) it's because the arrow is the wrong weight for the bow.

Technically you are correct though. If you fire an arrow too heavy for your bow, it may increase its stopping power and will definitely decrease its accuracy. But that's probably not what you meant.

[BigDaddy]

If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy.

This is not really the case in modern archery. The characteristics of the bow determines what kind of arrow you can fire. If you try to shoot an arrow too heavy or too light for your bow, it will not fly straight. Frequently when your arrows are fishtailing (left/right) or porpoising (up/down) it's because the arrow is the wrong weight for the bow.

Technically you are correct though. If you fire an arrow too heavy for your bow, it may increase its stopping power and will definitely decrease its accuracy. But that's probably not what you meant.

I actually got that from an archery magazine. If I understand correctly, assuming you are correct, and I bet you are, and I'll add that I didn't say different, that a certain bow can handles several kinds and legnths of arrows with a variety of heads. Typically only refered to as length and weight in grains. I think the variation in lengths a bow can handle doesn't vary -that- much, but you can certainly use heavier arrows to obtain more stopping power, but generally sacrifice accuracy and range.

I'm not an expert, but I have poked around reading things from people who are. So, I'm trying to understand how a few sources here actually agree. A bow might come with a reccomended arrow weight, but that isn't a number that can't be adjusted for circumstance and archer, if I understand correctly.

[Knai]

I've never had a problem with necroing thread that are like this one. If someone want to discuss this type of thing, this can just as easily be the clearinghouse of information.

I am not a bow expert, but it is not difficult, for me at least, to understand penetration as a mixture between projectile mass and velocity and strike area, which yields power delivered per unit area. If I understand basic bowcraft, you get more overall stopping power from a large (higher grain) arrow than a small arrow, but less accurracy. This means that loading the projectile with energy is a function of some kind, and not just a gross number as in you get such and such joules or watt/hours or whatever, per pull (also, the last inches of pull seem to load more, so longer arrows seem to have more power).

So, most bows of whatever type should have fine penetration.

There was not a great deal of variety in materials for bows in medieval times, and crossbows were generally not 5 feet wide, as a long bow might be tall. From what I have seen, long bows also flexed quite a bit more. This would generally seem to favor the long bow for loading capacity over the crossbow, even if it take more weight to pull back the string. Modern crossbows, though still often narrow, flex like crazy, to a point I've never seen anyone do with a bow. Compound bows still seem superior however. Though it's likely there is a comparative crossbow variety as well. Most compound bows are composite of some sort and so are crossbows, but compound bows seem to be more wood like, whereas crossbows seem to be more like metal springs. I haven't a clue which is necessarily more powerful, becaue the compound bow is generally much larger, and crossbow remains nocked. Thus, there is not much of a clue from user interface. My assumption is that at the high end of penetration in the modern world are sophisticated compound crossbows that are quite large and are pulled back with a mechanical device. This seems like the most reason and sane way a person could load a projectile with as much force as can be reasonably accomplished.

But what about slings? I looked around at sling information, and it seems that slings remained effective for a very long time. Even now they have their harrasment value with certain irregulars. They use a blunt object, so the object needs to be very heavy or very dense. Indeed, when there was metal armor, the slings used lead shot, which was quite deadly, on the Romans.

However, the ranks of slingers dwindled, and this is likely to be due to skill and culture limitations. I've never used a sling, but they aren't and obvious as a bow, and certainly no were near as obvious as a crossbow.

In ancient Israel, they have found a lot of sling stones, some quite large (fist size!). There is some evidence that the Ancient people of the region used slings to achieve great results (also explaining why other nations came up against them with calvalry and chariots). One -could- assume that sling use was a sort of national pass time in the region. This would explain the various size and sling projectiles as well, and the skill involved. Contemporary persons skilled with the sling are quite effective and accurate. I would concede that such a situation could easily be like that with English Longbowmen, only, it seems, on a grander scale, as all the peasantry use the sling. I can picture granny giving the little ones their first sling lesson, because the men are to busy seeing who can sling the 3 pound monster stone the farthest.
On crossbows. A large part of the reason they were as powerful as they were while as small as they were was the materials involved. They don't bend back as far as a bow in most cases, and are nowhere near as wide. On the other hand, bows aren't made with significant amounts of metal, where the bow part of a crossbow frequently is. As for penetration, it is a combination of a lot of things. Weight, angle, bow power, weather, arrow shape, armor slope, etc, which applies to both bows and crossbows, and makes direct calculations pretty much impossible. Still leaves testing as an option.

On slings, fist sized stones are generally not used, although there are exceptions, and there is always that guy who is actually going to try a 3 pound stone. But generally you are looking at the 1-3 ounces weight (30-100 grams). As for stones, slings are used for sharp objects fairly often. Dart slings are commonplace, poisoned dart slings not commonplace enough. Then of course there is the Apache method, where the projectiles become sharp. Obsidian might be rounded now, but when it hits the rock right next to you the pieces flying at you aren't.

On bows and arrow weights. The weight and length of an arrow are fairly restricted on a per bow basis, although you can swap out heads pretty much as you want, as long as you avoid the kind of stuff that is too impractical for use anyways. It does impact flight, particularly if you try for flaming arrows (where you wrap something just behind the head then light it), but in general you are limited. A few points to the atlatl here, and a few days for me to avoid the word on.

[BigDaddy]

This is like an unending conversation about which crossbow or long bow is more powerful in general?

I've read that medieval crossbows were generally less powerful. So, what am I to make of all this conflicting information? What has likely happened is that musuem quality medieval crossbows are no doubt quite powerful and well made (and no doubt accurate). Given the relative complexities, however, and relative ages...

As far as slings go, I was trying to make the sling seem familiar within the context of ancient societes, were it was a very common weapon.

And as for arrow weight, I'm sure there is a nominal weight for the greatest accuracy and/or maximum range amd/or greatest power.

Edit: Now I just "went shopping" and read a x-bow manual. Use the heaviest arrow or bolt that your launcher can fire and you can fire accurately to take down your game as this is the most humane way of doing so. Using a LIGHTER arrow or bolt is considered dry firing. In some cases the x-bow or bow is not tested using a variety of arrows and using other arrows could void the warranty. Nonetheless, weight in grains on just one sight varied (for the same other specs.) from 6.6 grain/inch to 9.2 grain/inch. Which is a large difference. Enough that the manual reccomends always choosing the heaviest one you can shoot accurately at a reasonable range, so as to be humane. Thanks.

[Krec]

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crossbow.htm
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/longbow.htm

[BigDaddy]

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

Particularly the piece at the end. It appears there was much development with regards to the crossbow during the medieval period.

[Wrana]

It appears there was much development with regards to the crossbow during the medieval period.
Yes. Particularly in bow material. You had probably heard about metal bows - which only became widespread in 15-16th centuries. Earliest devices had mostly plain wooden bows. At Crusades' era they were mostly composite.
As for actual arrow weight - I wonder. From what I heard crossbow bolts were often considerably heavier. But this may be mostly the case with late models - those with metal bows. Thanks for the source anyway.
Considering slings I've already mentioned that even at Tamerlane's times their use continued and was quite effective. Of course, they were even harder to learn than bows...

[Maerlande]

You guys don't seem to get the physics.

The bow material is IRRELEVANT. If you make a bow of styrofoam and it requires a 150 lb draw at 12 inches draw pull at 24" bow width it's the same as a titanium bow with the same characteristics.

Because, fundamentally it's a human being drawing the bow. And a human being has a limited amount of reach and pull. So all things being equal, a human with 150 lbs of pull at 28 inches of draw will put MORE energy into an arrow or bolt with a longer total bow length. So if a human could draw a 12 foot long bow at 150 lbs and 28 inches it would have far more penetration than any 4 foot tall bow at the same draw and length.

Material is irrelevant. If we are talking about machine powered draw and unlimited time to draw then compounding by mechanical advantage comes into play.

Of course, if you want to debate this I'm most happy. Of course you realize I will win.

[Maerlande]

Oh yeah. This is basic conservation of energy. The input energy is a human being. The variation is not that large.

[BigDaddy]

Crossbows use a mechanical advantage to pull back the string. Even the ancient crossbows seem to have higher kinetic energy, because of larger projectiles but has a slower projectile speed. So, theoretically, they could penetrate armor better.

I've learned a bit since this discussion started. The problem appears to be that both bows did what they were designed for well. Both pierced armor, and if the longbow didn't, they would just use different arrows. In the time period prior to 1500-1600 or so and maybe after that longbows outdistanced crossbows considerably... although, it appears that even this may have been largely due to crossbow users being essentially unskilled archers.

The lesson seems to be that you need several times as many similarly skilled crossbows to be as effective as longbows would be. Because crossbow archers were frequently unskilled, you would need many more, and even then you might have, at least, range problems.

And range problems in such situations are pretty severe and can have telling consequences.

And also, regarding the Catholic Church 'banning' the crossbow, it seems that many people think that was a law regarding dangerous shooting exhibitions. As I don't have a copy of the law (and couldn't probably read it if I did), I can't give an actual opinion as to the nature of its intention... So, I assume it was a common law designed to keep reasonable and decent order.

[vfb]

You guys don't seem to get the physics.

The bow material is IRRELEVANT. If you make a bow of styrofoam and it requires a 150 lb draw at 12 inches draw pull at 24" bow width it's the same as a titanium bow with the same characteristics.

Styrofoam is very light. So a 150lb draw styrofoam bow would only actually be about 15lb. Clearly you did not understand anything at all we were talking about on IRC. I thought you engineering types studied physics in school. Not just beaver dams. Titanium on the other hand is really heavy, so a 150lb draw titantium bow would be about 400lbs actually.

Because, fundamentally it's a human being drawing the bow.

What are you, some kind of troll? You are clearly racist against the Vaetti.

And a human being has a limited amount of reach and pull. So all things being equal, a human with 150 lbs of pull at 28 inches of draw will put MORE energy into an arrow or bolt with a longer total bow length. So if a human could draw a 12 foot long bow at 150 lbs and 28 inches it would have far more penetration than any 4 foot tall bow at the same draw and length.


Gah! There you go again. You are totally ignoring the material used in the bow construction. How can you keep making this basic mistake, ignoring composites, and plastics, and steel bows, or, more importantly, plasteel Xbows? Don't you know 'X' stands for "extra"?

Material is irrelevant. If we are talking about machine powered draw and unlimited time to draw then compounding by mechanical advantage comes into play.

Of course, if you want to debate this I'm most happy. Of course you realize I will win.

Sounds to me like you've been drinking! You're not gonna win anything that way, except maybe a beer belly.

[Lingchih]

Admin, please lock this thread. If I knew how to do so, I would do it myself. It has long outlived it's usefullness.

[Stavis_L]

Because, fundamentally it's a human being drawing the bow.
What are you, some kind of troll? You are clearly racist against the Vaetti.


Trolls have every right to be racist against vaetti. Besides, I hear that vaetti make good eatin' (if you're a troll.)

...oh, and you could stick the little vaetti skull on the end of your Troll-size crossbow, and it would look real intimidating or something. If you hang a vaetti skull on your bow, it just kinda dangles there looking silly, plus it throws off your aim as it waves back and forth.

Therefore, Crossbows > Longbows, if you're a troll. On the other hand, Longbows > Crossbows, if you're a vaetti.

[13lackGu4rd]

actually Maerlande, the material is very relevant... not only does it affect the weight of the bow but also its elastic ability. the more elastic the material the less force the archer needs to use in order to pull the bow, or give you more pulling effect for the same energy. yes that would be limited by the archer's arms length too, which is why you need a balance between weight and elastic ability. oh and if you use metals or something that isn't elastic at all than a strong enough pull might just break the bow due to its lack of elastic ability...

[Maerlande]

not only does it affect the weight of the bow but also its elastic ability. the more elastic the material the less force the archer needs to use in order to pull the bow, or give you more pulling effect for the same energy.

Incorrect: The energy input to the bow by the archer is exactly the work done in pulling the bow. It is the integral of force times distance. A variance in the pull force does affect this energy, therefore compound bows place more energy into an arrow by using mechanical pulleys to use high pull at the start of draw and much less pull at the end thus taking advantage of the fact that an archer is stronger at the beginning of the draw and then can hold a light pull longer for more accurate aim. However, the effect of a compound bow is irrelevant to the material. It is the result of the pulley system which is not medieval and irrelevant to this converstation. There are also medieval bows that to some extent make use of this feature. Recurve bows have a more linear force curve while longbows tend to be easy to start to draw while much harder to hold.

Strength to mass ratio of wood one the highest of all known materials used by man. Here is a chart showing the excellent specific strengths of materials. http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/interactive_charts/spec-spec/NS6Chart.htmlNote that top woods such as oak and pine rate better than most metals. And the metals in the higher specific strengths are strictly modern. Keep in mind that in the medieval period only bronze, brass, and mild steels were known. Whereas they had access to wonderful woods and tremendously effective materials such as sinew.

oh and if you use metals or something that isn't elastic at all than a strong enough pull might just break the bow due to its lack of elastic ability...

You are misusing the term elastic. Elastic means a material that returns to it's original length after the application of force. Metals are very elastic as long as you don't exceed the yield strength. But then so is wood. All materials have an elastic limit. You can break a rubber band to take an example of an extremely elastic material. Plastic materials deform under force. The best example is probably plascticine. It has near zero elasticity. Metals are also plastic after the yield strength is exceeded. This is why you can form metals with extreme force and/or heat. The elastic limit is reduced by the application of heat.

Styrofoam is very light. So a 150lb draw styrofoam bow would only actually be about 15lb. Clearly you did not understand anything at all we were talking about on IRC. I thought you engineering types studied physics in school. Not just beaver dams. Titanium on the other hand is really heavy, so a 150lb draw titantium bow would be about 400lbs actually.

Haha: Took me a bit. I thought you were serious on first read.

Crossbows use a mechanical advantage to pull back the string. Even the ancient crossbows seem to have higher kinetic energy, because of larger projectiles but has a slower projectile speed. So, theoretically, they could penetrate armor better.

Correct: You trade speed for force. I agree that crossbows can be built with much higher penetration since you are not limited by human arm strength. The ultimate example is a ballista. Crank wound and probably only shoot every minute or so, but they can shoot a gigantic bolt of probably 10 lbs at somewhere in that 300 fps speed. Now that is penetration.

But we started with the basic discussion that simple goat's foot type crossbows that are fairly quick to load (say 2-3 per minute) have more penetration than a longbow.

The lesson seems to be that you need several times as many similarly skilled crossbows to be as effective as longbows would be. Because crossbow archers were frequently unskilled, you would need many more, and even then you might have, at least, range problems.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's very difficult to learn to shot a longbow. While crossbows are quite easy to learn to shot. There is another very important advantage to a crossbow. You can carry it loaded. Which brings into play the huge advantage of volley fire. It takes a great deal more coordination to get volley fire with bows. It's quite difficult to hold a longbow drawn for any time and aim gets worse as you hold it. You can hold a crossbow ready to fire for a long time.

Well, interesting discussion. I know I'm annoying the heck out of LingChih by keeping it going but I'm having fun.

[Humakty]

The angle of the impact also plays a role in armor penetration. I don't think longbows were really efficient at penetration while using indirect fire, which is mandatory to shoot at long distances.

[Sombre]

I don't think anyone has the right to lock this thread. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE WINS.

[Sombre]

The angle of the impact also plays a role in armor penetration. I don't think longbows were really efficient at penetration while using indirect fire, which is mandatory to shoot at long distances.

I didn't realise the objective was to pierce through a completely flat wall standing upright on even ground.

[Gregstrom]

not only does it affect the weight of the bow but also its elastic ability. the more elastic the material the less force the archer needs to use in order to pull the bow, or give you more pulling effect for the same energy.


And if we're being picky then we can talk about efficiency losses depending on material too - coefficient of restitution etc. are probably quite relevant here. I seem to remember that the maximum return on the energy you put into a bow is on the order of 1/3, and that the rate of return is in some way dependent on the length of the bow.

[Humakty]

I didn't realise the objective was to pierce through a completely flat wall standing upright on even ground.

What is firepower about exactly ? A French Lancer or Gendarme unit is a bit like a moving wall, with pointy stuffs.

[Lingchih]

Read Devices and Desires, by KJ Parker, if you really want to get anal about all of this.

[chrispedersen]

The angle of the impact also plays a role in armor penetration. I don't think longbows were really efficient at penetration while using indirect fire, which is mandatory to shoot at long distances.

Medievel longbows and medieval crossbows were tested for penetration, both historically and in period rexaminations.

Penetrating power was found to be almost the same. Which isn't as crazy as it sounds, as they used the same waxed hemp strings.

The primary advantage of crossbows were the ease of rounding up troops, (and hence any old peasant would do). Vs the cost of training long bowman.

A unit of crossbowman were probably 1/2 as effective as a unit of longbowman. And probably 1/5 the cost - and with a much broader pool of people that you could draw to form the units - they were much more available.

[Lingchih]

This leads to the question of artillery. Why are there no scorpions (heavy, long range crossbow), or other heavy artillery in the game?

God, I can't believe I just added to this thread again.

[BigDaddy]

According to the siege engineers description, he makes the equipment for sieging. It is apparently not used in the battles. For those you use mages as heavy artillery.