OT: Archery in combat

[Arkcon]

There have been a number of shows on The History Channel discussing ancient arms and armor. The training to use the longbow was extensive and took a few years, you need a lot of upper body strength to pull it back so as to have the devastating effect.

The crossbow was the early answer to the training a longbow required. It was all about using technology to achieve a powerful flight without the need for human strength. From what I've seen on The History Channel, French soldiers and Italian mercenaries armed with crossbows were soon ablative meat when they met a force of trained British longbowmen.

Ha. Take that. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! Ummm, wait no that doesn't work here. Uhhh. OK. Rule Britannia. Yeah. That works.

Now for my question. On The History Channel, there was this series about some guy who taught a group of amateurs to fight in each episode with ancient weapons. He did Roman legions, Vikings, even Pirates. He was a bald headed guy. Don't think he was British. Did anyone remember the show's title? I can't find it on the History Channel website, and I want to program it into Tivo in case it's rerun. Note, it's not the latest series on the History Channel, "The Weapons That Made Britain" -- which is pretty much the same topic. I saw that one.

[AgentZero]

Sort of on the same topic, I saw a great documentary on the BBC about this study they conducted of WWI soldiers shortly after the war and were shocked to find that only something like 10% of soliders were actively trying to kill the enemy. The other 90% were just firing above or off to one side etc. A more recent study of battles in Vietnam found the figure at about 98% and out of the 2% that were trying actively aiming to kill their enemy, half were certifiable sociopaths who enjoyed the experience, and the other half were what's considered the 'model soldier' just doing what his country required of him and who, assuming he survived, would return to normal civilian life easily after his tour was finished.

When I was watching this, I actually thought about the Longbowmen, since they didn't really aim at anyone, but rather at some point up in the sky, whereas the guys with muskets, and later rifles and machine guns, actually had to look at the people they were killing, and I guess this 'personalization' of killing made it a lot harder. Now of course with cruise missiles, ICBMs, bombers and fighter-bombers, killings gone back to being nice and unpersonal. Wierd, huh?

[Will]

Arkcon, you're searching for the name Peter Woodward, and the show Conquest. I remember seeing this show a while back, very entertaining. I saw the Tournament, Bow and Arrow, and Knives and Daggers. From the episode list, a few others seem interesting, for various reasons... you'll see what I mean when you look towards the top of the list

Unfortunately, it seems the History Channel isn't airing any episodes for the near future. Pity. I might have actually suffered spending some time in front of the idiot box for that show

[Arkcon]

Will said:
"Arkcon, you're searching for the name Peter Woodward, and the show Conquest."

That was it. Thank you. They may rerun it some time late at night, or he may be on a similar show. Tivo will take care of the details for me.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

With deforestation in England, I wonder if there would have been enough Yew Trees to make long bows in Napoleonic Times. Hate to be sick, but have you ever wondered what the population of Europe would have been by now if there wouldn't have been so many huge wars? All of this mideval warfare talk is making me want to re-install Warlords 3 , or maybe buy Dominions II !

[dogscoff]

Or if not for the bubonic plague, which killed 25% of the population in the mid 1600s...

[PvK]

Yes, from a munchkin perspective, or from a "most effective unit type not considering how it comes into existence" perspective, lifelong-trained English longbows probably are a more effective unit type than typical musket infantry. "Lieutenant-Colonel Lee of the 44th Foot" had a good point. The rate of fire and accuracy was generally far superior.

From the perspective of what it takes to "get" lifelong-trained English longbows in one's army, though, it's not just a button the king clicks in Sid Meier's Civilization.

Those troops were exceptional, with specialized powerful bows, lifelong training including great skill and strength, bodkin arrowheads designed to pierce armor, etc. At Agincourt the battle conditions and French tactics from overconfidence were also large factors. It's interesting too that the English were almost as surprised as the French that these troops could defeat heavy cavalry. (Relevant to the "do you like to know the game values?" question. The French player probably got upset. )

Less spectacular archers in other circumstances were not so great against armor. Shields are also fairly effective countermeasures to arrows. Even if an arrow goes through a shield, a shield penetration won't be killing the target.

Most archers though were specialists, even back through ancient times. Bows are not as easy to become competent with, as guns or crossbows are. Training time is important to the overall cost and difficulty of fielding a troop type. Also, most people in a society, government, and even the military, are neither munchkin-minded nor do they understand tactical issues very well. Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the fire and smoke.

PvK

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

I would think that one sides artillery would make the other sides Longbow Archers hard to deploy If such a hypothetical use of archers was ever considered.
I saw something on History Channel that showed that the battle field in Agincourt was super muddy. The French bogged down and were then targeted at long range by the archers.
I should have bought stock in the History Channel!

Favorite SNL skit: What if Napoleon had a B-52, What if Sparticus had a Piper Cub.

Now when we talk Longbow, we're not talking about the Helicopter Gunship...right?

[Puke]

PvK said:
Most people think "gun > bow". After all, look at the fire and smoke.

this feature alone goes a long way to making the gun superior to the bow. despite its poor reload time, accuracy, high manufacturing cost, and questionable reliability, the early musket proved to be the superior weapon of war.

more important than its actual efficiency, is the morale effects on the battlefield. the loud bang, bright flash, and smoke will shake most enemies. and being the cause of a loud bang will bolster the morale of those wielding firearms.

This is a particular good presentation on the evolution of weaponry:

http://www.killology.com/article_weaponry.htm

[Ruatha]

Will said:
Arkcon, you're searching for the name Peter Woodward, and the show Conquest. I remember seeing this show a while back, very entertaining. I saw the Tournament, Bow and Arrow, and Knives and Daggers. From the episode list, a few others seem interesting, for various reasons... you'll see what I mean when you look towards the top of the list

Unfortunately, it seems the History Channel isn't airing any episodes for the near future. Pity. I might have actually suffered spending some time in front of the idiot box for that show

Didn't he play the technomage in Babylon 5, the coolest figure in the whole series/movies..