.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $6.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 3: The Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old February 12th, 2009, 05:09 PM

chrispedersen chrispedersen is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,075
Thanks: 203
Thanked 121 Times in 91 Posts
chrispedersen is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Bows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlioni View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old February 12th, 2009, 10:04 PM

Scarlioni Scarlioni is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 69
Thanks: 5
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Scarlioni is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Bows

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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...
HTML Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

Quote:
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
HTML Code:
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
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old February 13th, 2009, 06:32 AM

Agema Agema is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 792
Thanks: 28
Thanked 45 Times in 31 Posts
Agema is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

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.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old February 13th, 2009, 04:53 PM
JimMorrison's Avatar

JimMorrison JimMorrison is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utopia, Oregon
Posts: 2,676
Thanks: 83
Thanked 143 Times in 108 Posts
JimMorrison is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

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.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old February 13th, 2009, 05:54 PM

chrispedersen chrispedersen is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,075
Thanks: 203
Thanked 121 Times in 91 Posts
chrispedersen is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Bows

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlioni View Post
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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...
HTML Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes

Quote:
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
HTML Code:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old February 16th, 2010, 06:08 PM

Maerlande Maerlande is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 26
Thanked 55 Times in 29 Posts
Maerlande is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

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.

Last edited by Maerlande; February 16th, 2010 at 06:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Maerlande For This Useful Post:
  #187  
Old February 17th, 2010, 01:41 AM
Lingchih's Avatar

Lingchih Lingchih is offline
General
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irving, TX
Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 54
Thanked 60 Times in 35 Posts
Lingchih is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Wow, you resurrected this thread Maerlande? Well, your post was good, and informative.
__________________
Be forewarned, anything I post is probably either 1) Sophomoric humor, 2) Satire, 3) A gross exaggeration of the power I currently possess, 4) An outright lie, or 5) Drunken ramblings.

I occasionally post something useful.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old February 17th, 2010, 02:13 AM

Maerlande Maerlande is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 26
Thanked 55 Times in 29 Posts
Maerlande is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

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.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old February 17th, 2010, 02:24 AM

militarist militarist is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 434
Thanks: 126
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
militarist is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

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.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old February 17th, 2010, 02:27 AM

Maerlande Maerlande is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 518
Thanks: 26
Thanked 55 Times in 29 Posts
Maerlande is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows

Sounds like the analysis done by John Keagan in "The Face of Battle"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.