Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Huns's descendants horse archery

12467

Comments

  • VarangosVarangos Senior Member Posts: 109Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Lets put an end to this meaningless debate. Nomads are famous with their bow skill and easterners famous with their heavy cavalry.
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Varangos wrote: »
    Lets put an end to this meaningless debate. Nomads are famous with their bow skill and easterners famous with their heavy cavalry.
    Agreed
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    I will continue this conversation through private messaging.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Varangos wrote: »
    Lets put an end to this meaningless debate. Nomads are famous with their bow skill and easterners famous with their heavy cavalry.

    Famous doesnt mean better... But I do know that this thread wont go anywhere.

    Ezpecially since we are limited to the reputation that some people had (Romans for example) on other people...
    Ah why not lets call it truce, whatever CA decides I guess...

    Peace it is mate... for now MOUAHAHAH!! :cool:
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Peace it is mate... for now MOUAHAHAH!! :cool:
    LoL I guess Huns will attack after all hmm. btw I did some research on White Huns read up about battle of Battle of Herat (484).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Herat_%28484%29 Hunic vic well played. :D
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • GamgeeGamgee Senior Member Posts: 1,679Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Native Americans used this technique as well. There are many reports and stories of skilled archers firing many rounds a second. It is believed with as much evidence as you are going to get with native americans that we could have also used this technique.

    If true this suggests such a rapid fire technique may have been used in many places around the world by skilled archers who got the idea. It may simply have been invented and used independently in many places at once like the bow and arrow.

    My primary example of course is Hiawatha. Who was said to be able to fire 10 arrows into the sky before the first hit the ground (Thanks to the rediscovery of this technique I have seen people do 11). If so that would predate known contact with us. This would predate all contact except the Norse colonization attempts. It seems unlikely that they would have had this expert archery knowledge. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely given what we know.
  • ranknfileranknfile Senior Member Posts: 7,331Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    rofl wrote: »
    ...The nomads should have the best horse archers for gameplay reasons.

    I think nothing should be based for the reason of "gameplay?" What does that mean exactly anyway? Make something inaccurate to balance play to make things "fair?" No, keep it real. Make it accurate.
    I think that Parthians and Sasanids adopted from nomads It just is warfare tactic for sasanids. But It is lifestyle for nomads. nomads riding horse and mounted archert since childhood..Nomads have to better horse archery...

    Whereas this is a legitimate reason for the Nomads to have better horse archery in the game IMO.

    I'm certain that CA will make compound bows have better armor penetration than other bows.
    "Whoever desires is always poor" - Claudian
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Gamgee wrote: »
    Native Americans used this technique as well. There are many reports and stories of skilled archers firing many rounds a second. It is believed with as much evidence as you are going to get with native americans that we could have also used this technique.

    If true this suggests such a rapid fire technique may have been used in many places around the world by skilled archers who got the idea. It may simply have been invented and used independently in many places at once like the bow and arrow.

    My primary example of course is Hiawatha. Who was said to be able to fire 10 arrows into the sky before the first hit the ground (Thanks to the rediscovery of this technique I have seen people do 11). If so that would predate known contact with us. This would predate all contact except the Norse colonization attempts. It seems unlikely that they would have had this expert archery knowledge. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely given what we know.

    While a fast rate of fire for archery is preferred, I don't think the "rediscovery" by Lars Anderson is historical. He uses incredibly weak bows and very small, thin arrows, neither of which would be suitable for warfare. Real warbows would have typically been at least 70lb draw weight, and that is still a low number, and I couldn't even do his technique with my 45lb bow. Firing a weak bow at that rate would be far too weak to even make it to the enemy lines, and even if it did, wouldn't hurt anyone who wore any kind of armor. Not to mention arrows used for warfare were also far thicker and heavier, and could not be held in the grip he uses. Also, if people using this technique can pull off 11 arrows before one strikes the ground, and this native american chief was seen as practically legendary for managing 10, then it leads me to believe they aren't quite doing it properly. I think this video would be a more plausible demonstration of what horse archery shooting would have looked like in terms of bow handling (skip to around 1:00 to get to the good part), but even then I don't think a rate of fire like that would even be typical. Battles lasted for quite some time, and sustaining that rate of fire would leave you exhausted very quickly. Matt Easton, who is pretty good authority on military history in general, really drives the point home here.

    Horse archers employed the tactic of the Cantabrian circle in which they would ride in circles and loose their arrows when they turned to face the opponent before riding around to shoot again. This heavily implies that they shot their bows once per revolution, which would actually be quite a slow rate of fire, especially compared to foot archers. While some horse archer armies in history would use their knees to steer their horses, many still relied on reins, so they would fire their arrow toward the opponent quickly in a relatively straight path, then quickly grab their reins to wheel around for a second shot. The idea that they seemed to have perfect control of their horses while using both hands to fire rapid volleys of arrows is overlooking the main feature of being a good cavalryman, and that is actual horsemanship. Throughout history, better riders made better soldiers. No matter how good you are with your weapon, if your opponent can outmaneuver you on their horse, you will lose on most occasions. Again, Matt Easton saves the day here. Mounted combat, even horse archery, was far more about being a rider than it was an archer. Neglecting this is far too common.
  • GamgeeGamgee Senior Member Posts: 1,679Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    I actually agree, I think we would need practical demonstrations of this technique from horseback with equipment that would be used in war to see how effective it is.

    I think if it was used and it probably was a few times it is more for foot archers.
  • ErminazErminaz Senior Member Las Vegas, Nevada, USAPosts: 5,345Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Great points gage2617. Other things that need to be taken into account for it's practicality is how quickly you will use up your ammunition. Logistics is and always will be one of the greatest factors of any battle. Firing rapidly with a weak bow means that you are expending weak arrows quickly to little effect and forcing you to withdraw and resupply. If a large body of men are loosing arrows constantly at that rate you will exhaust your supply very quickly and have gained little in return (almost no injured or dead, the enemy ranks are maintained). If you are going for suppression fire what do you hope to gain from it? Lifting their shields to try and prevent them from properly receiving a charge? That is the only thing I can come up with and if they bring up their own skirmishers to drive off your "suppression" attempt then it has had vertually no effect and was a waste of time. Maybe you could use it to try and harass the enemy cavalry arm in hopes of aggravating them into being pulled out of position...

    Bows do not have the penetrating power of fire-arms and should not be thought of in the same context but in the context of their own abilities and what they can achieve. Even with fire-arms, outside of suppression fire, a single killing shot is worth far more than 9 that hit nothing. Personally I was raised and have maintained the school of thought of being in control of your fire-arm and to strive for one shot one kill. Don't let movies and video games influence your perception of reality.
    Tacitus Quotes:
    Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

    I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited December 2014
    gage2617 wrote: »
    While a fast rate of fire for archery is preferred, I don't think the "rediscovery" by Lars Anderson is historical. He uses incredibly weak bows and very small, thin arrows, neither of which would be suitable for warfare. Real warbows would have typically been at least 70lb draw weight, and that is still a low number, and I couldn't even do his technique with my 45lb bow. Firing a weak bow at that rate would be far too weak to even make it to the enemy lines, and even if it did, wouldn't hurt anyone who wore any kind of armor. Not to mention arrows used for warfare were also far thicker and heavier, and could not be held in the grip he uses. Also, if people using this technique can pull off 11 arrows before one strikes the ground, and this native american chief was seen as practically legendary for managing 10, then it leads me to believe they aren't quite doing it properly. I think this video would be a more plausible demonstration of what horse archery shooting would have looked like in terms of bow handling (skip to around 1:00 to get to the good part), but even then I don't think a rate of fire like that would even be typical. Battles lasted for quite some time, and sustaining that rate of fire would leave you exhausted very quickly. Matt Easton, who is pretty good authority on military history in general, really drives the point home here.

    Horse archers employed the tactic of the Cantabrian circle in which they would ride in circles and loose their arrows when they turned to face the opponent before riding around to shoot again. This heavily implies that they shot their bows once per revolution, which would actually be quite a slow rate of fire, especially compared to foot archers. While some horse archer armies in history would use their knees to steer their horses, many still relied on reins, so they would fire their arrow toward the opponent quickly in a relatively straight path, then quickly grab their reins to wheel around for a second shot. The idea that they seemed to have perfect control of their horses while using both hands to fire rapid volleys of arrows is overlooking the main feature of being a good cavalryman, and that is actual horsemanship. Throughout history, better riders made better soldiers. No matter how good you are with your weapon, if your opponent can outmaneuver you on their horse, you will lose on most occasions. Again, Matt Easton saves the day here. Mounted combat, even horse archery, was far more about being a rider than it was an archer. Neglecting this is far too common.

    Which comes back to a point I made earlier, the quality of the horse is essential. I firmly one of the reasons Sassanids heavy cav was better than the rest is the type of steed they. Same can be said about the Parthian horse archers.
    The steppe horses were no match in terms of discipline and strength. Stamina goes to the Mongolian ponies.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Which comes back to a point I made earlier, the quality of the horse is essential. I firmly one of the reasons Sassanids heavy cav was better than the rest is the type of steed they. Same can be said about the Parthian horse archers.
    The steppe horses were no match in terms of discipline and strength. Stamina goes to the Mongolian ponies.

    Nomads didnt all used steppe horse :p

    The Massagetae invented the cataphract needed powerfull horses, so did the sarmatian. Dont forget that the saka lived in Iran too... at some point in their history (nomad move :))

    Wasnt there a truce?
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited December 2014
    Back to OP vid, yeah the bow used is weak and looks like an easy draw. But nothing to say against the teqnique?
    However i have no doupt that proffesional archers of that time could rapid shot an warbow for at least short bursts.

    Proffesional archer of that time would have years of training and would have muscles/fingers of steel so to speak.
    When you have the muscle basics and have the techniche shown in OP vid, there shuld be possible to rapid shot with an warbow.

    Hell if a man can train to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu65ouV8Elo Then archer living a life by the warbow shuld be able to do some "magic".

    An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia: "While Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (Khwarezm), Yesüngge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 alds (536 m)."
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Nortrix87 wrote: »
    Back to OP vid, yeah the bow used is weak and looks like an easy draw. But nothing to say against the teqnique?
    However i have no doupt that proffesional archers of that time could rapid shot an warbow for at least short bursts.

    Proffesional archer of that time would have years of training and would have muscles/fingers of steel so to speak.
    When you have the muscle basics and have the techniche shown in OP vid, there shuld be possible to rapid shot with an warbow.

    Hell if a man can train to do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu65ouV8Elo Then archer living a life by the warbow shuld be able to do some "magic".

    An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia: "While Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (Khwarezm), Yesüngge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 alds (536 m)."

    There is no way warbows could be "burst shot". Most warbows have a significantly higher draw weight than even olympic archers would attempt to draw. Olympiads, like the best archers in antiquity, have trained their entire, or at least most of their lives. If an olympic archer can't do it with their standard 50lb bows, it definitely could not be done with a 70lb warbow. Even then, 70lb is very low for a warbow and is the minimum. Many would have been 100-120, and English longbows could have even been around 140. Drawing a bow like that takes great amounts of strength and endurance, and certainly could not be fired rapidly. In those rapid fire videos, they don't even draw the bow to its full extent, so they don't even use their already weak low poundage bows to their full strength. As a matter of fact, olympiads are probably better archers than even professional archers would have been in the past. Diet and nutrition are better nowadays, and olympiads, unlike most other people in history, do not practice archery in their free time when they aren't busy farming or whatever occupation most soldiers would have also had. They practice as their job, and because of that, are a very good indication of what the greatest archers may have been able to do.

    We're also talking about horse archers here, and drawing a bow uses your back and hip muscles more than it does your arms. If you sit on a horse, you cannot properly use your hips or back muscles to their full extent, so using a warbow while mounted would make it even more difficult to draw and even more impossible to fire rapidly.

    The rapid fire technique may very well have been used, but not in warfare. It would have had applications in sporting events and in hunting, and may have been a great feat to be able to pull off well, but again, it was not for warfare. I don't understand your quote about Yesüngge shooting a target far away. If anything, that means he had a powerful bow and drew it to its full extent, meaning it wasn't rapid fired. Also that distance is impossible.

    The only situations I can see rapid firing like they do in those videos is perhaps tribal societies like native americans or some african groups. Their warfare generally focused on small scale raids in very close quarters with little or no armor. Tribal societies also tended to use far weaker bows where it may be possible to draw quickly. The little armor means they don't need the penetration of strong bows, and the close quarters means distance also isn't an issue. Thinking that it would have been used in Europe or the Near East though is out of the question.
  • madwapitimadwapiti Senior Member Posts: 602Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Nortrix87 wrote: »
    An inscription on a stone stele was found near Nerchinsk in Siberia: "While Chinggis (Genghis) Khan was holding an assembly of Mongolian dignitaries, after his conquest of Sartaul (Khwarezm), Yesüngge (the son of Chinggis Khan's brother) shot a target at 335 alds (536 m)."

    Yeah, I'm gonna have call horse dukie on whomever wrote that inscription (not you Nortrix87, I'm not killing the messenger). Thats a third of a mile. Here's a wiki quote:

    "Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds."

    I'm no physicist, but assuming that a 150lb draw could shoot around 300 meters (which I'd have to see to believe), it would take around 250lbs of force to pull back a bow that could make it 500 meters (not to mention that compound bows are half the size of longbows, so wouldn't it be twice the necessary draw force?). Unless he was standing on the edge of a cliff, with his target at the bottom a long ways off, I'm not seeing this a possible.

    In regards to the video, remember that no army is just gonna stand there and take it. There's going to be return fire (at least pilla, if not arrows/stones) and men will be shifting and raising shields. They aren't straw/wooden posts.

    Huns were very impressive, but I think it's more about their army composition and lightning strike tactics than their archer superiority.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Nomads didnt all used steppe horse :p

    The Massagetae invented the cataphract needed powerfull horses, so did the sarmatian. Dont forget that the saka lived in Iran too... at some point in their history (nomad move :))

    Wasnt there a truce?

    You keep spreading false information that Massagetae invented the cataphract, that is nonsense. Some of the earliest known examples of heavy cavalry was discovered in Khwarezm, the area east of the Caspian sea and to the south of Aral sea 6th century BC ish.

    These were not cataphracts, but cavalry armored with only a curiass. Cultures such as the Assyrians, Achaemenids Persians, and later the Macedonians all successfully fielded heavy cavalry in their armies. The Acahemenids , in particular, were known to field heavily armored horsemen along with horse armor.

    Moving on to around the 300~ BC the term cataphract was used by Greek and Roman sources to describe heavily armored cavalry used by Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanid, and Roman (inc ERE) armies. Warriors armored spectacularly from head to toe, equipped with full horse armor and armed with a long pike and other weapons.

    This term in ancient sources was originally limited to the nations described above. Modern writers often apply the term “cataphract” to Sarmatian heavy cavalry, despite the fact that this term was not used by ancient authors on the Sarmatians. This doesn't mean they didn't have heavy cavalry, but maybe not the cataphracts. There are evidence of Sarmation cataphracts, but that's in the 2nd century AD.

    No one can claim the invention of the cataphract from what evidence there is, but if anything I would suggest it would have been more of an evolution from heavy to super heavy.
    gage2617 wrote: »
    We're also talking about horse archers here, and drawing a bow uses your back and hip muscles more than it does your arms. If you sit on a horse, you cannot properly use your hips or back muscles to their full extent, so using a warbow while mounted would make it even more difficult to draw and even more impossible to fire rapidly.
    I think you underestimate the ancients ability. Those guys were turrets of the ancient world. Their Arm/upper chest and back muscles would easily be able to handle those bows, considering they trained from childhood. How do you explain the 'Parthian Shot' then?
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    I think you underestimate the ancients ability. Those guys were turrets of the ancient world. Their Arm/upper chest and back muscles would easily be able to handle those bows, considering they trained from childhood. How do you explain the 'Parthian Shot' then?

    Simple. They were not "turrets". They were mobile skirmishers that could exploit weak points in an enemy line. "Parthian Shot" was a technique used typically during a feigned retreat when you would be riding away from the enemy in a straight line. In that case you do not need to devote as much time to using your reins so you can put more time into using your bow. They would have improved fire rate in a feigned retreat, but nothing near a rapid fire, and that has nothing to do with better muscles or skill. It's because they don't have to steer their horse. Also, if you are riding away from your opponent, your arrows will be weaker as they will move slower due to you riding in the opposite direction. For that reason, a more powerful bow and longer draw is even more essential, so if anything, "Parthian Shot" further disproves rapid fire as a valid technique.

    Again, even if they trained from childhood, which they didn't, as in most societies worldwide generally would have began training no earlier than 14 or 15 because intense exercise can be harmful for children, modern olympiads would be just as well trained if not better. If an olympiad cannot do it on foot, a horse archer could not do it on a horse. Even knights in the middle ages and Spartans in antiquity would not begin military training until their middle teenage years. Even then, training from your teenage years would have still been a rare thing and only really among the warrior castes of Indo-European cultures, which includes most of the nomads and Persians. Most armies still relied on levies, and even the professional troops would have been volunteers who would begin training with whatever their equivalent to boot camp was. The U.S. for example is an all professional military but our soldiers don't train from childhood. I didn't start my military training until I was 19.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Simple. They were not "turrets". They were mobile skirmishers that could exploit weak points in an enemy line. "Parthian Shot" was a technique used typically during a feigned retreat when you would be riding away from the enemy in a straight line. In that case you do not need to devote as much time to using your reins so you can put more time into using your bow. They would have improved fire rate in a feigned retreat, but nothing near a rapid fire, and that has nothing to do with better muscles or skill. It's because they don't have to steer their horse. Also, if you are riding away from your opponent, your arrows will be weaker as they will move slower due to you riding in the opposite direction. For that reason, a more powerful bow and longer draw is even more essential, so if anything, "Parthian Shot" further disproves rapid fire as a valid technique.

    Again, even if they trained from childhood, which they didn't, as in most societies worldwide generally would have began training no earlier than 14 or 15 because intense exercise can be harmful for children, modern olympiads would be just as well trained if not better. If an olympiad cannot do it on foot, a horse archer could not do it on a horse. Even knights in the middle ages and Spartans in antiquity would not begin military training until their middle teenage years.
    Sorry, when I said "turret" my main point was not rapid fire, but more the movement and fire. Bad word I guess. And by this I mean the torso and leg muscles have less effect than on the power and accuracy than you get with arm/upper chest back muscless. The distances to the target would be much less aswel, probably no more than 100 metres or so.

    I agree with what you said about rapid shot, but you can't rule out there might have been some individuals who were just better than the rest and who had a better fire/rate or had developed their own style of rapid fire aka Elite horse archers.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Sorry, when I said "turret" my main point was not rapid fire, but more the movement and fire. Bad word I guess. And by this I mean the torso and leg muscles have less effect than on the power and accuracy than you get with arm/upper chest back muscless. The distances to the target would be much less aswel, probably no more than 100 metres or so.

    I agree with what you said about rapid shot, but you can't rule out there might have been some individuals who were just better than the rest and who had a better fire/rate or had developed their own style of rapid fire aka Elite horse archers.

    I see. Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Yes certain individuals would become better at their jobs, and being able to shoot marginally faster is definitely something that varied from soldier to soldier. A fantastic archer may in fact be able to achieve quite a high rate of fire, but certainly nothing like what I mean when I refer to the rapid-fire "rediscovered art from Lars Anderson". I can see one arrow per 3 seconds as generally feasible for a great horse archer if he does it in short bursts so as not to exhaust him physically and if he is riding in a straight line so he does not have to tend to his horse, but anything faster than that is stretching it. You would still have to draw a heavy warbow, with heavy war arrows to its full extent. That rate of fire would still not be preferred in a drawn out battle because as Erminaz pointed out, you would very quickly exhaust your arrows and your opponents would again be free to maneuver until you resupplied.
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    I see. Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Yes certain individuals would become better at their jobs, and being able to shoot marginally faster is definitely something that varied from soldier to soldier. A fantastic archer may in fact be able to achieve quite a high rate of fire, but certainly nothing like what I mean when I refer to the rapid-fire "rediscovered art from Lars Anderson". I can see one arrow per 3 seconds as generally feasible for a great horse archer if he does it in short bursts so as not to exhaust him physically and if he is riding in a straight line so he does not have to tend to his horse, but anything faster than that is stretching it. You would still have to draw a heavy warbow, with heavy war arrows to its full extent. That rate of fire would still not be preferred in a drawn out battle because as Erminaz pointed out, you would very quickly exhaust your arrows and your opponents would again be free to maneuver until you resupplied.

    Regarding Heavy cav I think Sassanid need to have Clibanarii the heaviest type of cataphract. what is your thoughts on this?
    gage2617 wrote: »
    I see. Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Yes certain individuals would become better at their jobs, and being able to shoot marginally faster is definitely something that varied from soldier to soldier. A fantastic archer may in fact be able to achieve quite a high rate of fire, but certainly nothing like what I mean when I refer to the rapid-fire "rediscovered art from Lars Anderson". I can see one arrow per 3 seconds as generally feasible for a great horse archer if he does it in short bursts so as not to exhaust him physically and if he is riding in a straight line so he does not have to tend to his horse, but anything faster than that is stretching it. You would still have to draw a heavy warbow, with heavy war arrows to its full extent. That rate of fire would still not be preferred in a drawn out battle because as Erminaz pointed out, you would very quickly exhaust your arrows and your opponents would again be free to maneuver until you resupplied.
    And here is the fact : "All the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skilfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would have thought them held fast by clamps of bronze.
    "The Persians opposed us serried bands of mail-clad horsemen in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with closely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horses was protected by coverings of leather."
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Regarding Heavy cav I think Sassanid need to have Clibanarii the heaviest type of cataphract. what is your thoughts on this?

    NOPE. Totally against. Not the heaviest, maybe the one with more armour, but with weaker stat than the sarmatian finest version
    You keep spreading false information that Massagetae invented the cataphract, that is nonsense. Some of the earliest known examples of heavy cavalry was discovered in Khwarezm, the area east of the Caspian sea and to the south of Aral sea 6th century BC ish.

    These were not cataphracts, but cavalry armored with only a curiass. Cultures such as the Assyrians, Achaemenids Persians, and later the Macedonians all successfully fielded heavy cavalry in their armies. The Acahemenids , in particular, were known to field heavily armored horsemen along with horse armor.

    Moving on to around the 300~ BC the term cataphract was used by Greek and Roman sources to describe heavily armored cavalry used by Seleucid, Parthian, Sassanid, and Roman (inc ERE) armies. Warriors armored spectacularly from head to toe, equipped with full horse armor and armed with a long pike and other weapons.

    This term in ancient sources was originally limited to the nations described above. Modern writers often apply the term “cataphract” to Sarmatian heavy cavalry, despite the fact that this term was not used by ancient authors on the Sarmatians. This doesn't mean they didn't have heavy cavalry, but maybe not the cataphracts. There are evidence of Sarmation cataphracts, but that's in the 2nd century AD.

    No one can claim the invention of the cataphract from what evidence there is, but if anything I would suggest it would have been more of an evolution from heavy to super heavy.

    I think you underestimate the ancients ability. Those guys were turrets of the ancient world. Their Arm/upper chest and back muscles would easily be able to handle those bows, considering they trained from childhood. How do you explain the 'Parthian Shot' then?

    I say that you ly, you say that I ly.... lets end this there before a moderator do it for us

    The term "Partian shot" come from the fact that Romans had more relations with Parthia than with the nomads.

    Since I know that you like Wikipedia so much:
    Iranian tribes such as the Massagetae were believed to be the originator of the class of heavy cavalry known as cataphract.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    NOPE. Totally against. Not the heaviest, maybe the one with more armour, but with weaker stat than the sarmatian finest version
    You got any proof of this "sarmatians finest"?

    In that very link you posted further down it says "The Parthian Empire of Ancient Iran marks an early recorded utilization of armored cavalry in warfare, and are specifically believed to have given rise to the tradition of very heavily armored cataphract lancers."
    No mention of the so called "sarmatians finest" there.

    When i mentioned "Parthian Shot" I used the term to describe the type of skill used by horse archers (nomads etc) and not exclusively about Parthian horse archery.
    gage2617 wrote: »
    I see. Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Yes certain individuals would become better at their jobs, and being able to shoot marginally faster is definitely something that varied from soldier to soldier. A fantastic archer may in fact be able to achieve quite a high rate of fire, but certainly nothing like what I mean when I refer to the rapid-fire "rediscovered art from Lars Anderson". I can see one arrow per 3 seconds as generally feasible for a great horse archer if he does it in short bursts so as not to exhaust him physically and if he is riding in a straight line so he does not have to tend to his horse, but anything faster than that is stretching it. You would still have to draw a heavy warbow, with heavy war arrows to its full extent. That rate of fire would still not be preferred in a drawn out battle because as Erminaz pointed out, you would very quickly exhaust your arrows and your opponents would again be free to maneuver until you resupplied.
    You can't even take that Lars Anderson seriously. He doesn't pull halfway before release so it's just ridiculous. What you say is right though.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • CagatayKhanCagatayKhan Senior Member Posts: 814Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    If I recall, the subject of this thread is the archery of the 'Hun's Descendants'. Whilst I am aware of just how veiled and vague that phrasing is, and the equally ephemeral quality of useful and comparatively scientific data that might be expected from ancient sources with no concept of Historiography, let us do keep the topic on whatever dubious foundation that phrase places us.

    Avoid nonsense about nationalistic subjects and modern peoples and any personally oriented comments. That way chaos and a quick trip to the Time Out Room lie. :) Let us try to end the calendar year for some of us with as much panache as we can manage, ay? ~Al
    You deal with offensive comment,insults and two trolls
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Now im not an expert at Archery, but seems to me that the main reason for rapid fire is not the quickness of the draw but how fast you put the next arrow ready for draw. The draw it self comes down to muscle power.

    The composite/mongol bows used lighter arrows than for example the long bow making them nimbler to handle.

    My amature opinion is that this girl has wery good technique, now combine that with 5 times the muscle and an composite warbow. Why not?
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    You got any proof of this "sarmatians finest"?

    In that very link you posted further down it says "The Parthian Empire of Ancient Iran marks an early recorded utilization of armored cavalry in warfare, and are specifically believed to have given rise to the tradition of very heavily armored cataphract lancers."
    No mention of the so called "sarmatians finest" there.

    When i mentioned "Parthian Shot" I used the term to describe the type of skill used by horse archers (nomads etc) and not exclusively about Parthian horse archery.


    You can't even take that Lars Anderson seriously. He doesn't pull halfway before release so it's just ridiculous. What you say is right though.

    Yeah wiki do sometime says 2 different things... its wikipedia after all. :p

    By sarmatian finest I mean their best cataphract, don't know how the hell you didnt get that.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • MabuyaQMabuyaQ Senior Member Posts: 797Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Nortrix87 wrote: »
    Now im not an expert at Archery, but seems to me that the main reason for rapid fire is not the quickness of the draw but how fast you put the next arrow ready for draw. The draw it self comes down to muscle power.

    The composite/mongol bows used lighter arrows than for example the long bow making them nimbler to handle.

    My amature opinion is that this girl has wery good technique, now combine that with 5 times the muscle and an composite warbow. Why not?

    Sure she is fast with her overhand technique (especially useful for this type of quiver), but it is a lot harder to draw a bow with that technique to full draw (draw length) and still keep it steady (in most shots she also barely draws it half if you look closely). Draw length is just as important to how fast/far you will shoot an arrow because for every 2,5 cm extra draw you gain about 3 meters a second at release of the arrow. That quickly adds up to a lot more distance and penetrating power. That is a problem you see in many of these rapid fire video's, they hardly ever draw the bow to half length so it is not indication of what would be possible in real warfare where a full draw would be needed to have the penetrating power to get through shields and armor.

    Draw length is also one of the reason why many archers (even then) still prefer using a lighter bow because they can really draw it to its full potential (maximum draw length) so even with the same heavy arrows they can shoot much further, for much longer and more accurate than with a heavier bow. Heavier bows are/were used for competitions and bragging rights.

    I really have no problem shooting with my 90lbs. longbow replica but I still shoot further, faster and more accurate with my 60lbs. longbow replica. It is just that I can shoot that 90lbs. bow usefully whereas others can not even though they have been shooting for just as long as me and some even outshoot me with that 60 lbs. bow.

    The real advantage in ballistic warfare simply comes down to numbers so shooting faster can/will be an advantage but simply having more archers will do that same trick without having to rely on those few 'exceptional' man that can really draw faster and/or heavier. That was the real advantage of the Huns over many of the people they faced in battle, on their side everybody could shoot a bow decently which simply gave them superior numbers.
    The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy. (Friedrich Nietsche)
    The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. (Sun Tzu)
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Yeah wiki do sometime says 2 different things... its wikipedia after all. :p

    By sarmatian finest I mean their best cataphract, don't know how the hell you didn't get that.

    Maybe I don't know because I've only heard them from you. How do you know they would have been better than the Sassanids Cataphrcats/Clibinarii or even the ERE Catas/Clibs who were frequently documented. Where is your compelling evidence as proof that Sarmatian Catas were better. You keep banging on about they are the best and invented the cata, but yet no proof. I'm starting to think you're just trolling.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Maybe I don't know because I've only heard them from you. How do you know they would have been better than the Sassanids Cataphrcats/Clibinarii or even the ERE Catas/Clibs who were frequently documented. Where is your compelling evidence as proof that Sarmatian Catas were better. You keep banging on about they are the best and invented the cata, but yet no proof. I'm starting to think you're just trolling.

    The Sarmatian arent nearly as documented as the Sassanids, thats a fact mate. You dont presented more proofs than me about the Sassanids version beeing better than the Sarmatian....

    So are you trolling? Or are you just defending your ancestors as hard as you can?

    The thing that we both know is that since the 2 didnt face each other, we wont be able to prouve out of doupt that one of them is in anyway better than the other.

    "You keep banging about they are the best and invented the cata, but yet no proof. I'm starting to think you're just trolling."
    Thats can also be apply to you concerning your side mate :p Dont know why you use poinst that can be apply to you lol
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 999Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    The Sarmatian arent nearly as documented as the Sassanids, thats a fact mate. You dont presented more proofs than me about the Sassanids version beeing better than the Sarmatian....

    So are you trolling? Or are you just defending your ancestors as hard as you can?

    The thing that we both know is that since the 2 didnt face each other, we wont be able to prouve out of doupt that one of them is in anyway better than the other.

    "You keep banging about they are the best and invented the cata, but yet no proof. I'm starting to think you're just trolling."
    Thats can also be apply to you concerning your side mate :p Dont know why you use poinst that can be apply to you lol
    I don't have to prove anything to you. History and achievements speak for themselves. By all, believe what you want.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • Nortrix87Nortrix87 Senior Member Posts: 991Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Yeah, I'm gonna have call horse dukie on whomever wrote that inscription (not you Nortrix87, I'm not killing the messenger). Thats a third of a mile. Here's a wiki quote:

    "Modern longbows have a useful range up to 180 m (200 yd). A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.9 oz) arrow 328 m (360 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.3 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (272 yd). A flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yds."

    I'm no physicist, but assuming that a 150lb draw could shoot around 300 meters (which I'd have to see to believe), it would take around 250lbs of force to pull back a bow that could make it 500 meters (not to mention that compound bows are half the size of longbows, so wouldn't it be twice the necessary draw force?). Unless he was standing on the edge of a cliff, with his target at the bottom a long ways off, I'm not seeing this a possible.

    Im no expert but Longbows are way different than composite bows. Think i read somewere that the longbow arrows are alot heavier making shorter range eaven with equal or more force(ibs) than an mongol(composite) bow. Longbows with its heavier arrows probably had the best armor penetration but less range.

    Found some more records on composite bows range, if they are true or not i don`t know:

    Mongol bow:
    "In the historical novel "Khökh Sudar" Injinashi, the Mongolian philosopher, historian and writer, imagines the competition amongst all Mongolian men in about 1194-1195: five archers each hit the target three times from a distance of 500 bows (1 bow = at least 1 metre)."

    Turkish bow:
    "For many years the excellence of Turkish bows could be seen from historical records. In 1910 an archery contest was held on the beach at Le Touquet, France, where Ingo Simon was able to shoot an arrow 434 m using an old Turkish composite bow requiring a force of 440N or 99 lb"
    "We men are the monsters now. The time of heroes is dead, Wiglaf - the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs, fear, and shame."

    - Beowulf
This discussion has been closed.