Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Thilock_Dominus]

Originally Posted by 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".

Catapult FTW!!1

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Agema

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Agema

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

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).

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

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]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

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