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

12357

Comments

  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    I don't have to prove anything to you. History and achievements speak for themselves. By all, believe what you want.

    Same to you mate.
    Lets end this debate there, I'm loosing my time
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Nortrix87 wrote: »
    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"

    Longbow has less armor penetration than the mongol composite bow
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb21UW3fmkU&index=49&list=WL
    Interesting part start at 6min
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    I don't have to prove anything to you. History and achievements speak for themselves. By all, believe what you want.
    Clibanarii
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarii Seems this 1 was started with Persian as they picked Persian pic to explain it and roman talking about persian if you keep reading the article :D
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • ☢Wraith of Pegasus☢Wraith of Pegasus Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    I don't have to prove anything to you. History and achievements speak for themselves. By all, believe what you want.
    The Clibanarii were used mostly by Eastern armies; for example, they were used by the Palmyrene Empire, and fought against the Roman cavalry at Immae and Emesa. Sassanids employed Clibanarii in their western armies, mainly against the Eastern Roman empire. They were more heavily armoured than their Byzantine counterparts.
    this should be proof of Sassanian being more reliant on heavy cav they are more armored than their roman enemy.
    ☢Exponential Decay☢
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    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



    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:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cavalry
    Massagetae=/=Sarmatia. Massagetae=Central Asia, Sarmatia=Steppes. Actually, there's no proof of the existence of the Massagetae. They're probably made up by Herodotus. I believe that the first cataphracts were in Sogdia and the Khwarezm and they weren't nomadic. Also, heavy cavalry reached the stepped the steppes in the 4th century bc. They didn't exist prior to the 4th century bc in the steppes.

    "The further evolution of these early forms of heavy cavalry in Western Eurasia is not entirely clear. Heavily armored riders on large horses appear in 4th century BC frescoes in the northern Black Sea region, notably at a time when the Scythians, who relied on light horse archers, were superseded by the Sarmatians."

    And where did you come up with the "Sarmatian finest"? And how could they possibly have better armor than the Sassanids?
    "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."- Ammanius
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    The Clibanarii were used mostly by Eastern armies; for example, they were used by the Palmyrene Empire, and fought against the Roman cavalry at Immae and Emesa. Sassanids employed Clibanarii in their western armies, mainly against the Eastern Roman empire. They were more heavily armoured than their Byzantine counterparts.
    this should be proof of Sassanian being more reliant on heavy cav they are more armored than their roman enemy.

    Agree there, Roman cataphract shouldn't match the Sassanids ones... or the Sarmatian knight ;)
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Longbow has less armor penetration than the mongol composite bow
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb21UW3fmkU&index=49&list=WL
    Interesting part start at 6min

    Longbows are off topic in this thread, but even so, your video is pretty pointless. Considering most people can't even pull the string on a real longbow back because they're so heavy, and the fact that they're using incorrect arrows and arrowheads leads me to believe it's incorrect. Mostly because it's simple math. The power of a bow is based on two things: draw weight and draw length. Because of that, a longbow will always be more powerful than other bows of the same draw weight because they are so long. The two are specialist weapons, and power is not an indicator of which is best. The longbow is specialized to take out moderately armored opponents, because contrary to what most people believe, plate armor was very good and could stop virtually any bow or crossbow. The bow of the Mongols was specialized for skirmishing on horseback against foes that are generally less armored than what a longbow would be up against. The two are best at what they were made for.
    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?

    She has good technique for target archery, but soldiers never carried their quivers across their backs in warfare. They hung them at their waist, so she isn't a very good indicator of what a fast archer would look like in warfare.
    MabuyaQ wrote:
    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.

    You're absolutely right. More arrows was generally more preferred to accuracy. They would prefer many volleys in the enemy's direction to a few well placed shots, but that only goes so far. They would want as many as could be fired, as long as those arrows would be able to kill someone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they would prefer 10 shots of a 100lb bow in the general direction of the enemy to 5 well aimed shots from a 100lb bow, but they would not prefer 20 shots from a 50lb bow because those shots wouldn't do anything even if they made it to the enemy.

    As for heavy cavalry, I'm relatively unfamiliar with heavy cavalry warfare in the steppes or in the Near East, so I have a question that if answered, I think could settle which is "better". When the Romans faced the Sassanids, were the Sassanid heavy cavalry a decisive factor in their conflicts? Similarly, when the Romans fought against steppe peoples, did they comment on how good the steppe people's heavy cavalry was? Now I know that the Romans recognized that the Sassanids had great heavy cavalry, but if they did not give the same recognition to the steppe peoples, then I feel like the steppe factions would not have had the same ability as heavy cavalry.
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Longbows are off topic in this thread, but even so, your video is pretty pointless. Considering most people can't even pull the string on a real longbow back because they're so heavy, and the fact that they're using incorrect arrows and arrowheads leads me to believe it's incorrect. Mostly because it's simple math. The power of a bow is based on two things: draw weight and draw length. Because of that, a longbow will always be more powerful than other bows of the same draw weight because they are so long. The two are specialist weapons, and power is not an indicator of which is best. The longbow is specialized to take out moderately armored opponents, because contrary to what most people believe, plate armor was very good and could stop virtually any bow or crossbow. The bow of the Mongols was specialized for skirmishing on horseback against foes that are generally less armored than what a longbow would be up against. The two are best at what they were made for.



    She has good technique for target archery, but soldiers never carried their quivers across their backs in warfare. They hung them at their waist, so she isn't a very good indicator of what a fast archer would look like in warfare.



    You're absolutely right. More arrows was generally more preferred to accuracy. They would prefer many volleys in the enemy's direction to a few well placed shots, but that only goes so far. They would want as many as could be fired, as long as those arrows would be able to kill someone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they would prefer 10 shots of a 100lb bow in the general direction of the enemy to 5 well aimed shots from a 100lb bow, but they would not prefer 20 shots from a 50lb bow because those shots wouldn't do anything even if they made it to the enemy.

    As for heavy cavalry, I'm relatively unfamiliar with heavy cavalry warfare in the steppes or in the Near East, so I have a question that if answered, I think could settle which is "better". When the Romans faced the Sassanids, were the Sassanid heavy cavalry a decisive factor in their conflicts? Similarly, when the Romans fought against steppe peoples, did they comment on how good the steppe people's heavy cavalry was? Now I know that the Romans recognized that the Sassanids had great heavy cavalry, but if they did not give the same recognition to the steppe peoples, then I feel like the steppe factions would not have had the same ability as heavy cavalry.
    "Nearly all the Alani are men of great stature and beauty; their hair is somewhat yellow, their eyes are terribly fierce; the lightness of their armour renders them rapid in their movements; and they are in every respect equal to the Huns, only more civilized in their food and their manner of life. They plunder and hunt as far as the Sea of Azov and the Cimmerian Bosphorus, ravaging also Armenia and Media."-Ammianus

    The nomads skill in horse archery is praised by the Romans but they don't mention their heavy cavalry and always mention their light armor.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    rofl wrote: »
    "Nearly all the Alani are men of great stature and beauty; their hair is somewhat yellow, their eyes are terribly fierce; the lightness of their armour renders them rapid in their movements; and they are in every respect equal to the Huns, only more civilized in their food and their manner of life. They plunder and hunt as far as the Sea of Azov and the Cimmerian Bosphorus, ravaging also Armenia and Media."-Ammianus

    The nomads skill in horse archery is praised by the Romans but they don't mention their heavy cavalry and always mention their light armor.

    I expected as much, but didn't know enough to be that particular area to be sure. My scope of knowledge really resides in Europe for the most part. I think the idea of nomad v Persian is really just boiling down to nationalism in this thread unfortunately. The nomads were famous for their light cavalry and horse archers, and the Sassanids for their cataphracts, and I expect the game will, and should, reflect as such.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    When I say massagetae I mention the sakas... Saces in french. Nomads did lived in central asia. When I do a link with Sarmatian and Massagetea I base myself that some people think that Massagtae migrated to became the Alans (SOME people not all) and the Alans did had a part of Sarmatian in their population and used them in their army. I just want to point out that in Emperor Augustus campaign the Alans have the same banner as Massagetae, so CA may think that way.

    Again, by finest I mean the best, do I really need to argue that they did had better troops than other?? JEZ

    I never said that the Sarmatian had better armor than the Sassanids... Where did you take that from?

    That beeing said I do think that Sassanids should have extremely good cataphract, I'm just saying that we shouldnt forget the nomads, who influenced the etablishment of knights in Europe.

    Agree or disagree.... I dont care, we wont end up to something on this thread.

    Peace :)

    P.S. The Sarmatian did use light armour but also heavy armour. I really hope that CA give them access to both.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Again, by finest I mean the best, do I really need to argue that they did had better troops than other?? JEZ

    I never said that the Sarmatian had better armor than the Sassanids... Where did you take that from?

    That beeing said I do think that Sassanids should have extremely good cataphract, I'm just saying that we shouldnt forget the nomads, who influenced the etablishment of knights in Europe.

    Agree or disagree.... I dont care, we wont end up to something on this thread.

    Peace :)

    P.S. The Sarmatian did use light armour but also heavy armour. I really hope that CA give them access to both.

    The superior armor of the Sassanids is a huge advantage for them and something that you can't just brush aside. In general, the more professional and armored Sassanid cataphracts would be superior, with the nomads excelling at light cavalry.

    Also, the nomads had no effect on the development of knights in Europe. The concept of knights emerged after the Battle of Tours where the Franks defeated an Umayyad Arab force that attempted to conquer Gaul. The Franks noted the usefulness of heavily armored cavalry and began reforms to build a strong corps of heavily armored knights.
  • darthfantadarthfanta Senior Member Posts: 367Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    The superior armor of the Sassanids is a huge advantage for them and something that you can't just brush aside. In general, the more professional and armored Sassanid cataphracts would be superior, with the nomads excelling at light cavalry.

    Also, the nomads had no effect on the development of knights in Europe. The concept of knights emerged after the Battle of Tours where the Franks defeated an Umayyad Arab force that attempted to conquer Gaul. The Franks noted the usefulness of heavily armored cavalry and began reforms to build a strong corps of heavily armored knights.
    Nomads pretty much introduced the idea of heavily armoured cavalry. Because Scythian metal work was so poor,heavily armoured Sarmatian horsemen were able to destroy Scythian horse archers because Scythian arrows couldn't penetrate Sarmatian armour.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Nomads pretty much introduced the idea of heavily armoured cavalry. Because Scythian metal work was so poor,heavily armoured Sarmatian horsemen were able to destroy Scythian horse archers because Scythian arrows couldn't penetrate Sarmatian armour.

    That doesn't say anything about Persian vs nomad though. Your argument only shows that nomads could beat other kinds of nomads, and if anything, shows flaws in their abilities as marksmen rather than portraying them as great heavy cavalry, if the problem was indeed poor arrowheads. Also, just because heavy cavalry originated with them (which is a pretty bold claim really, but I'm not refuting it), doesn't mean they will always have the best. Mail armor also originated with the steppe peoples (or Celts as some scholars think), but they don't have the best heavy infantry in this period.
  • Gardan_KoloftGardan_Koloft Senior Member Zamin_e_IranPosts: 976Registered Users, Smiley
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    ....do I really need to argue that they did had better troops than other?? JEZ.......who influenced the etablishment of knights in Europe.....
    ...Deluded beyond reason. :D
    What you going to claim next? That Samatian invented Greek fire? Perhaps the Trebuchet? I'm really interested to find out new information.
    I!..!I
    “The lion is most handsome when hunting”
  • MabuyaQMabuyaQ Senior Member Posts: 797Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    You're absolutely right. More arrows was generally more preferred to accuracy. They would prefer many volleys in the enemy's direction to a few well placed shots, but that only goes so far. They would want as many as could be fired, as long as those arrows would be able to kill someone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they would prefer 10 shots of a 100lb bow in the general direction of the enemy to 5 well aimed shots from a 100lb bow, but they would not prefer 20 shots from a 50lb bow because those shots wouldn't do anything even if they made it to the enemy.

    This is where distance to target comes into play because that 50lbs bow has plenty of penetrating power at short range even against an armored enemy. And even if that 100lbs. bow can shoot further it is also true that hitting a target at that longer range isn't becoming any easier. This is also where horses come into play because the horse makes it possible to get into effective range quickly, shoot and get out of range before the enemy can hurl javelins effectively or attack with spears. (and as a moving target they are harder to hit by enemy archers especially if they aren't used to shooting at such quick moving targets).

    This is also the advantage of a composite bows over a standard European 'longbow' and using certain other material over wood, with such a bow you can achieve the same draw weight in a smaller bow (with smaller draw length in most cases) which makes it easier to handle on a horse whilst the horse allows you to still shoot at least just as many shots as with a heavier bow (that has a longer total range) simply because the horse enables you to retreat fast enough to get into safety for a next shot. So those 20 50lbs. shots from the right range by a horse archer can be a lot more damaging than the 10 shots (or even 20 shots) of those 100lbs. longbows simply because the horse archers are harder to hit and those longbows will have to shoot half there shots over much longer distances (reducing accuracy significantly). Now add the Parthian shot skill so these horse archers spend even less time at the shortest range (making it easier for the enemy archers to hit them) and you see what the true advantage and killing power is of large numbers of horse archers even with only a 50-60 lbs. composite bow.
    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)
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    I think the nomads should have the best horse archers and light cavalry for the sake of balance. The Sassanids would be OP if they were historically accurate. They have elephants, best heavy cavalry, and good infantry. That should be enough.

    "In military system and discipline, by continual exercises in the business of the camp, and the adoption of the various manoeuvres which they have learnt from us, they have become formidable even to the greatest armies; they trust chiefly to the valour of their cavalry, in which all their nobles and rich men serve. Their infantry are armed like mirmillos, and are as obedient as grooms; and they always follow the cavalry like a band condemned to everlasting slavery, never receiving either pay or gratuity. This nation, besides those whom it has permanently subdued, has also compelled many others to go under the yoke; so brave is it and so skilful in all warlike exercises, that it would be invincible were it not continually weakened by civil and by foreign wars."-Ammianus on the Persians

    Remmember, this is Ammanius who was full of prejudice.

    PS he also mentions they trained since they were boys just like the Scythians.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    The superior armor of the Sassanids is a huge advantage for them and something that you can't just brush aside. In general, the more professional and armored Sassanid cataphracts would be superior, with the nomads excelling at light cavalry.

    Also, the nomads had no effect on the development of knights in Europe. The concept of knights emerged after the Battle of Tours where the Franks defeated an Umayyad Arab force that attempted to conquer Gaul. The Franks noted the usefulness of heavily armored cavalry and began reforms to build a strong corps of heavily armored knights.

    Armour is a stat in Total war games, training represant the more important point when it come to charge bonus, mele attack and mele defence.

    The Alans stormed into Gaul and had heavy cavalry with them...
    rofl wrote: »
    I think the nomads should have the best horse archers and light cavalry for the sake of balance. The Sassanids would be OP if they were historically accurate. They have elephants, best heavy cavalry, and good infantry. That should be enough.

    "In military system and discipline, by continual exercises in the business of the camp, and the adoption of the various manoeuvres which they have learnt from us, they have become formidable even to the greatest armies; they trust chiefly to the valour of their cavalry, in which all their nobles and rich men serve. Their infantry are armed like mirmillos, and are as obedient as grooms; and they always follow the cavalry like a band condemned to everlasting slavery, never receiving either pay or gratuity. This nation, besides those whom it has permanently subdued, has also compelled many others to go under the yoke; so brave is it and so skilful in all warlike exercises, that it would be invincible were it not continually weakened by civil and by foreign wars."-Ammianus

    Remmember, this is Ammanius who was full of prejudice.

    PS he also mentions they trained since they were boys just like the Scythians.

    Nomads should have best horse archers and light cav because they did have the best... They should be near equal in heavy cav with sassanids, but I wouldnt mind if they come second if they good better light cav and horse archers.
    ...Deluded beyond reason. :D
    What you going to claim next? That Samatian invented Greek fire? Perhaps the Trebuchet? I'm really interested to find out new information.

    Stop trolling please...
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • roflrofl Member Posts: 88Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    Nomads should have best horse archers and light cav because they did have the best... They should be near equal in heavy cav with sassanids, but I wouldnt mind if they come second if they good better light cav and horse archers.
    You can't say they had the best without proof.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    rofl wrote: »
    You can't say they had the best without proof.

    Same to you... I mean you just said that the Sassanids had the best heavy cav with absolutely no proof...
    darthfanta wrote: »
    Nomads pretty much introduced the idea of heavily armoured cavalry. Because Scythian metal work was so poor,heavily armoured Sarmatian horsemen were able to destroy Scythian horse archers because Scythian arrows couldn't penetrate Sarmatian armour.

    There you go. Someone else who know something.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • MortalMortal Senior Member Posts: 174Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Longbows are off topic in this thread, but even so, your video is pretty pointless. Considering most people can't even pull the string on a real longbow back because they're so heavy, and the fact that they're using incorrect arrows and arrowheads leads me to believe it's incorrect. Mostly because it's simple math. The power of a bow is based on two things: draw weight and draw length. Because of that, a longbow will always be more powerful than other bows of the same draw weight because they are so long. The two are specialist weapons, and power is not an indicator of which is best. The longbow is specialized to take out moderately armored opponents, because contrary to what most people believe, plate armor was very good and could stop virtually any bow or crossbow. The bow of the Mongols was specialized for skirmishing on horseback against foes that are generally less armored than what a longbow would be up against. The two are best at what they were made for.



    She has good technique for target archery, but soldiers never carried their quivers across their backs in warfare. They hung them at their waist, so she isn't a very good indicator of what a fast archer would look like in warfare.



    You're absolutely right. More arrows was generally more preferred to accuracy. They would prefer many volleys in the enemy's direction to a few well placed shots, but that only goes so far. They would want as many as could be fired, as long as those arrows would be able to kill someone. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they would prefer 10 shots of a 100lb bow in the general direction of the enemy to 5 well aimed shots from a 100lb bow, but they would not prefer 20 shots from a 50lb bow because those shots wouldn't do anything even if they made it to the enemy.

    As for heavy cavalry, I'm relatively unfamiliar with heavy cavalry warfare in the steppes or in the Near East, so I have a question that if answered, I think could settle which is "better". When the Romans faced the Sassanids, were the Sassanid heavy cavalry a decisive factor in their conflicts? Similarly, when the Romans fought against steppe peoples, did they comment on how good the steppe people's heavy cavalry was? Now I know that the Romans recognized that the Sassanids had great heavy cavalry, but if they did not give the same recognition to the steppe peoples, then I feel like the steppe factions would not have had the same ability as heavy cavalry.

    The re-curve bow has allot more constant tension compared to the self bow while idle, this is the main reason for its superiority. As the arrow is released it is under more force just before the idle point of the bow relative to the self bow.

    At least that is how i understand it, i have always wanted to make my own bow but never got around to it yet.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Mortal wrote: »
    The re-curve bow has allot more constant tension compared to the self bow while idle, this is the main reason for its superiority. As the arrow is released it is under more force just before the idle point of the bow relative to the self bow.

    At least that is how i understand it, i have always wanted to make my own bow but never got around to it yet.

    Do you mean because they are constructed of two different materials and that helps it maintain high power without making it fragile? Because I often hear that a a reason for why eastern bows are superior, but truth is that the longbow was carved from the softer inner core of a tree outward, with the soft part on one side and the stiffer part on the other. While not two different materials, it creates the exact same effect. Again, the two bows are best at what they are made for, and I'm not going to claim that a longbow could be used on horseback, because that would just be silly. They were specialized for their particular job. For the eastern bows it was use on horseback, and for the English and Welsh it was power.
    Belialxv wrote:
    There you go. Someone else who know something.

    What he said is just a unsourced as a lot of what is on here. Even then, I already pointed out that that only shows that nomads could beat other nomads and shows nothing of value to this thread. It doesn't matter if Sarmatians had better heavy cavalry than Scyhthians. Both are nomadic, and it doesn't reflect at all on how it compares to factions like the Sassanids or ERE.
  • MortalMortal Senior Member Posts: 174Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Do you mean because they are constructed of two different materials and that helps it maintain high power without making it fragile? Because I often hear that a a reason for why eastern bows are superior, but truth is that the longbow was carved from the softer inner core of a tree outward, with the soft part on one side and the stiffer part on the other. While not two different materials, it creates the exact same effect. Again, the two bows are best at what they are made for, and I'm not going to claim that a longbow could be used on horseback, because that would just be silly. They were specialized for their particular job. For the eastern bows it was use on horseback, and for the English and Welsh it was power.



    What he said is just a unsourced as a lot of what is on here. Even then, I already pointed out that that only shows that nomads could beat other nomads and shows nothing of value to this thread. It doesn't matter if Sarmatians had better heavy cavalry than Scyhthians. Both are nomadic, and it doesn't reflect at all on how it compares to factions like the Sassanids or ERE.

    yeah longbow was made of yew which is a strong wood. But i mean the shape of the bow itself, if you watch a recurve bow being strung you will see how its natural shape is the opposite of its strung shape, this is what i mean by more tension while idle (strung)

    edit: i think the use of horn/sinew was neccessary for the recurve design at high loads just so the bow would stay together, if it was done with just wood maybe it would break.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Mortal wrote: »
    yeah longbow was made of yew which is a strong wood. But i mean the shape of the bow itself, if you watch a recurve bow being strung you will see how its natural shape is the opposite of its strung shape, this is what i mean by more tension while idle (strung)

    edit: i think the use of horn/sinew was neccessary for the recurve design at high loads just so the bow would stay together, if it was done with just wood maybe it would break.

    Ah yes, you're right, but that only makes it easier to achieve higher draw weights, and the natural shape of the recurve does also create more draw length without actually increasing the height of the bow. So pound for pound a recurve is superior to a longbow. If hypothetically a longbow and recurve were the same size, the longbow would be far weaker, but that is not the case. The longbow is far longer, and with a considerably higher draw weight on average, so as a whole, longbows would still have higher draw length and more draw weight, making them more powerful. So yeah, the recurve design is superior to the longbow design on paper.

    The recurve was just never made to the same size, so that advantage didn't show. The reason they weren't made in that size is because of their purpose and for who they were used against. In the east, soldiers were typically less armored, so they didn't need the same level of penetrative power, so the smaller compact design of the recurve is more suitable for loosing a higher volume of arrows, and also better for urban combat. If the recurve was made the height of the longbow, they would be unusable on horseback. The longbow on the other hand was made to deal with well armored opponents, typically dealing with at least a gambeson and mail shirt, and late medieval arrowheads may have pierced plate if the conditions were just right. The longbow was also particularly useful in sieges to launch volleys of arrows at great distances over walls, which was where most European warfare concentrated at the time. So as I said before, neither is "better" because both bows are better at what they were made for.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    What he said is just a unsourced as a lot of what is on here. Even then, I already pointed out that that only shows that nomads could beat other nomads and shows nothing of value to this thread. It doesn't matter if Sarmatians had better heavy cavalry than Scyhthians. Both are nomadic, and it doesn't reflect at all on how it compares to factions like the Sassanids or ERE.

    I never said it did... lol Stop putting words into my mount dude, it's getting annoying
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    I never said it did... lol Stop putting words into my mount dude, it's getting annoying

    First, I did not put any words into your mouth. I just said that what he said was just as unsourced as most of the other stuff here, but that also doesn't mean he's wrong. I'll admit that much of what I've said is also unsourced. Also, when he said that, we were discussing the abilities of nomadic cavalry vs Sassanid cavalry, and that their invention of heavy cavalry is evidence that theirs is best, which is something that can't be assumed.

    What is annoying in this thread is the rampant nationalism that is causing everyone to think that their favorite faction is best because it's their favorite and any evidence for anything seems to be secondary to that. A thread that could otherwise be a very good place to discuss general horse archery use an tactics is instead devolved into a rivalry against two groups who both had very capable light and heavy cavalry. Truth is, the elite troops from all factions, regardless of unit type, would all be pretty similar to each other because there is really only one best way to do something and each faction would use that method if possible. The difference then that would realistically come into play is the ability to field large numbers of these units.
  • MortalMortal Senior Member Posts: 174Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    Ah yes, you're right, but that only makes it easier to achieve higher draw weights, and the natural shape of the recurve does also create more draw length without actually increasing the height of the bow. So pound for pound a recurve is superior to a longbow. If hypothetically a longbow and recurve were the same size, the longbow would be far weaker, but that is not the case. The longbow is far longer, and with a considerably higher draw weight on average, so as a whole, longbows would still have higher draw length and more draw weight, making them more powerful. So yeah, the recurve design is superior to the longbow design on paper.

    The recurve was just never made to the same size, so that advantage didn't show. The reason they weren't made in that size is because of their purpose and for who they were used against. In the east, soldiers were typically less armored, so they didn't need the same level of penetrative power, so the smaller compact design of the recurve is more suitable for loosing a higher volume of arrows, and also better for urban combat. If the recurve was made the height of the longbow, they would be unusable on horseback. The longbow on the other hand was made to deal with well armored opponents, typically dealing with at least a gambeson and mail shirt, and late medieval arrowheads may have pierced plate if the conditions were just right. The longbow was also particularly useful in sieges to launch volleys of arrows at great distances over walls, which was where most European warfare concentrated at the time. So as I said before, neither is "better" because both bows are better at what they were made for.



    I guess the next argument would be; what draw weights do we expect from the germanic tribes compared to the sassanid/steppe tribesman (huns,alans etc.).

    I read somewhere a Parthian replica bow was reconstructed and estimated at 80 pounds, but this isn't very concrete. I would also imagine the long bows of the day from the Germanic tribes would not have been so large either. But i am not sure, i only ever heard of longbows from the medieval age not the dark ages.
  • gage2617gage2617 Senior Member Posts: 751Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Mortal wrote: »
    I guess the next argument would be; what draw weights do we expect from the germanic tribes compared to the sassanid/steppe tribesman (huns,alans etc.).

    I read somewhere a Parthian replica bow was reconstructed and estimated at 80 pounds, but this isn't very concrete. I would also imagine the long bows of the day from the Germanic tribes would not have been so large either. But i am not sure, i only ever heard of longbows from the medieval age not the dark ages.

    At this point the longbow used by the Germanics were nothing like those used in the later middle ages. The iconic longbow used by the Welsh and English didn't come until much, much later. Western Europe as a whole didn't really develop a strong archery tradition at all, with most nations opting for crossbows even in the later middle ages, and in the case of Iberia and Italy, javelins were still popular right up until gunpowder was introduced.

    The bows of the Germanic tribes in this time would have been relatively simple and crude, used mostly for hunting. I expect the Germanics should have probably the weakest archers compared to the other factions. Archery didn't have a very strong tradition in the Germanic tribes, with most preferring to use javelins. The strong point for the Germanics would be very strong heavy infantry and light infantry, with both carrying a large number of javelins or throwing axes, like angons or franciscas. The only group of Germanics that I can see as having decent archers at this point in history are the Franks and Goths, since archaeologically many arrows seem to be found in their graves. While we don't know much about exactly what bow they used, we can infer by the quantity of arrows found that they were proficient in archery. That coupled with the fact that scale armor can be found in Frankish and Gothic graves indicates that they were at least partially influenced by Eastern warfare, so perhaps they had recurves. I don't expect even the Franks to be able to match the eastern factions at all in archery, but simply have decent archer units that could contend with, say, the WRE.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    gage2617 wrote: »
    What is annoying in this thread is the rampant nationalism that is causing everyone to think that their favorite faction is best because it's their favorite and any evidence for anything seems to be secondary to that. A thread that could otherwise be a very good place to discuss general horse archery use an tactics is instead devolved into a rivalry against two groups who both had very capable light and heavy cavalry. Truth is, the elite troops from all factions, regardless of unit type, would all be pretty similar to each other because there is really only one best way to do something and each faction would use that method if possible. The difference then that would realistically come into play is the ability to field large numbers of these units.

    I agree there, I may ad that balance does take a place in giving stats to units.

    I do like history, but I only saw wiki on this thread, as I already said: its a joke source.

    Again Alans didnt fought Sassanids, we wont be able to present facts that one was better than the other.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
  • MortalMortal Senior Member Posts: 174Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Belialxv wrote: »
    I agree there, I may ad that balance does take a place in giving stats to units.

    I do like history, but I only saw wiki on this thread, as I already said: its a joke source.

    Again Alans didnt fought Sassanids, we wont be able to present facts that one was better than the other.

    Well the Huns defeated the Alans but not the Sassanids.
  • BelialxvBelialxv Senior Member SteppesPosts: 1,627Registered Users
    edited January 2015
    Mortal wrote: »
    Well the Huns defeated the Alans but not the Sassanids.

    They didnt attacked the Sassanids...... It's like saying that the French were better than the Song dynasty because the Mongols didnt defeated the French.
    ajz9uoslnqoi.jpg


    HUITZILOPOCHTLI

    god of war

    LIZARDMEN #makelustriagreatagain
    Clan Moulder #masterclan
This discussion has been closed.