Horse archers

[Quinn Inuit]

Something in the RS section caused me to do a little more research on horse archery. So I poked around and also discussed it with my father, who's a professor of American Indian history. We had a nice discussion of the differences between the weapons available to Indians and steppe peoples, but we both thought that it was unlikely that horse archers would be effective out to more than a couple of dozen yards.

Therefore, in the next version of the ExRM, I'm going to scale back the range of all HAs to be roughly equal to that of javelineers.

That's the realism part. Now for the tough part--the gameplay. How should we work this out so as not to screw over HA factions? I was thinking that the best option might be to make their heavy cavalry cheaper.

[The Colonel]

Maybe make horse archers cheaper and their bows more powerful? A shot at close range would definitely hurt I think. Maybe make them a little faster too so infantry won't catch them.

[AqD]

Something in the RS section caused me to do a little more research on horse archery. So I poked around and also discussed it with my father, who's a professor of American Indian history. We had a nice discussion of the differences between the weapons available to Indians and steppe peoples, but we both thought that it was unlikely that horse archers would be effective out to more than a couple of dozen yards.

For a direct shot against heavy armoured enemy, yes. But most of time they simply shoot toward the sky and expect arrows to fall from top at a certain distance. A falling arrow is effective itself no matter the range if you don't wear helmets

[Quinn Inuit]

That's a bit of a problem, though, since we can't effectively simulate the change in effectiveness between "death from above" and "oh man, I just shot Marvin in the face!" with the game engine as is. Given the difficulty of making a reasonably accurate shot on horseback, I'm leaning toward making them get pretty close in.

[despot_of_rhodes]

Maybe it´s possible to increase the lethality of the HA bows, but significantly decrease the accuracy? That way one could simulate the fact, that they don´t hit their targets too often, but if they do, then it hurts
The range could still be scaled to this changes, i think.

[Quinn Inuit]

Not a bad idea. aqd, you've messed around with lethality a lot more than I have. Do you have any suggestions on how best to implement DoR's idea? I could drop their attack by a bit to reduce their hit%, but I'm not sure how much to increase the lethality.

[Iskandar]

Something in the RS section caused me to do a little more research on horse archery. So I poked around and also discussed it with my father, who's a professor of American Indian history. We had a nice discussion of the differences between the weapons available to Indians and steppe peoples, but we both thought that it was unlikely that horse archers would be effective out to more than a couple of dozen yards.

Therefore, in the next version of the ExRM, I'm going to scale back the range of all HAs to be roughly equal to that of javelineers.

That's the realism part. Now for the tough part--the gameplay. How should we work this out so as not to screw over HA factions? I was thinking that the best option might be to make their heavy cavalry cheaper.

How does American Indian and Eurasian Steppe bows differ in terms of range and release of stored power? I have the general impression that the American Indian bows are of lower quality.
I suppose you also accounted for the fact that eurasian mounted practice has a lot longer timespan.

From what I've gathered, Mongol bow has a range between 300 and 400 m, high penetrating power and effective range of mounted shot is 75-85 m(based on modern practice). If I'm not horribly mistaken, there are archeological findings about the Skythians/Sarmatians that suggest extensive use of horn, wood, sinew, etc. in their equipment, i.e. the same materials which are used for the making of a mongol composite bow. I'd not put the skythian bow parameters much below the hun or mongol one.

Modern day hungarian mounted archery contests feature riding in a straight line (left to right) before a target of 90 cm in diameter and shooting at it from a distance of 35 to 9 m at the nearest point. The track is 90m long and has to be covered in under 18 seconds. Given that these are modern day figures, it is reasonable to assume that ancient mounted archery was of (considerably) higher standard.

Javelin range was 15-30 meters, self-bow was, how much? 50-60 m?
Given the consistent supremacy of steppe armies over such infantry types over an enormous time period, it seems illogical to me to put the effective range of mounted shot below those numbers. At Carrhae the parthian HAs hail of arrows had enough force to penetrate the scutum and cause minor injuries to the extremities; the romans were saved from major casualties in the battle itself by their heavy armor.

Romans had to include large body of slingers (>>100m range) as a counter to the HA's range in their parthian campaigns. Marc Anthony and Caesar's invasion plan being a particular example.

This is all without accounting for the battlefield factor, where hitting an exact target was much less important and one could fire in higher arcs as aqd pointed out. Mongols, for example, were known to carry two bows, starting a suppressive barrage from a really long distance and then switchting to the smaller, easier bow after closing.

I'd suggesting equalizing the range of HAs and the standing eastern reflex bow archers. Western bows had definetely smaller range, but I'm not sure where the cretan archers stand on that matter. We might want to increase a bit the range of the slingshot, though.

Maybe it´s possible to increase the lethality of the HA bows, but significantly decrease the accuracy? That way one could simulate the fact, that they don´t hit their targets too often, but if they do, then it hurts
The range could still be scaled to this changes, i think.

True, but if we're going for that much realistic use of the game engine we'd have to give the HAs much larger supply of arrows, which in turn would make the battles just longer, without effecting outcome. Personally I find the speed acceptable as it is.

[AqD]

Not a bad idea. aqd, you've messed around with lethality a lot more than I have. Do you have any suggestions on how best to implement DoR's idea? I could drop their attack by a bit to reduce their hit%, but I'm not sure how much to increase the lethality.

Lethality of missiles cannot be increased, and arrow accuracy doesn't matter because it's not single shots, and AI wouldn't try to use loosed formation, testudo/shield_wall or running speed to avoid arrows....

Shorten the range to within 60-90 would increase their power a lot, because they'd usually fire at the farthest range in which most arrows would be wasted due to wrong calculation method in RTW.

I emulate the arrow wounds by giving every units 3 HPs. Unless an unit is exposed under missile for a long time, it wouldn't suffer more than a few casualties. I don't have any better idea...

At Carrhae the parthian HAs hail of arrows had enough force to penetrate the scutum and cause minor injuries to the extremities; the romans were saved from major casualties in the battle itself by their heavy armor.

The penetration shouldn't occur unless it's direct shots in close range. Similar disaster didn't happen again I think. I read from Osprey and it says the generals were advised to form two opposing lines, keeping pushing outside to avoid being flanked, and use light legionaries (picked elites in each cohort) to fire javelins under the cover of shield wall to keep horse archers from getting into the "deadly" range.

Romans had to include large body of slingers (>>100m range) as a counter to the HA's range in their parthian campaigns. Marc Anthony and Caesar's invasion plan being a particular example.

Slings have a much longe range. Probably 200-500m. But their numbers were always very small.

but I'm not sure where the cretan archers stand on that matter.

I heard they used scythian bows...

We might want to increase a bit the range of the slingshot, though.

It's not a "bit" range. And they're quite powerful against cataphracts, so perhaps you guys would want to give it ap too.

[Domitan]

Well wasnt the sarmation bow a type of compound bow and very powerful? Reading a few historical texts didnt most the eastern horse archers fire at close range to create a whole in a formation for the cataphracts to charge through. They would concentrate on 1 area of a unit.

[AqD]

Well wasnt the sarmation bow a type of compound bow and very powerful? Reading a few historical texts didnt most the eastern horse archers fire at close range to create a whole in a formation for the cataphracts to charge through. They would concentrate on 1 area of a unit.

It depends on how the enemy responds. Both of testudo and loosed formation could counter the arrows. Sassanians used combined archers and cataphracts in the exact tactic you mentioned above to deal with later Romans. But I'm not sure why Romans didn't just employ testudo to defend themselves against it.

[HunGeneral]

I don't have too much experience using bows from horseback but as much as I know the bows that steppe nomads used mounted had a (maybe far) greater range than any bows the europeans used. Even in the middle ages aswell as in antiquety.

Like Iskander sad there is lots of archeological proof that the eastern nomads used horn, bone, sinew and other materials.
As much as I know experiment have prooven that these materials are so effective that bows of the same type made with modern materials are still just about half as strong as the original...

There are also many stories dealing with the accuracy of the nomad bow. One I can remember says that the more talented Hungarian horsemen could shoot an arrow between the eyes of an enemy warlord or general from 100 or even 150(!) meters. These are legends however and should be taken with caution.

Besides the native americans didn't use the horse and bow combination for so long - I don't know when they started using horses but I remember to have heard that it only spread after they captured and bread horses brought in by europeans. While the nomads used theese tactics almost since man came in contact with the horse.

I can't say what the ideal move would be but I don't think making the horsebow less effective or its range smaller is not a good idea.

[St Naffatun]

Carrhae - that's all I will say

24 yards? Didn't the eastern composite bow have an immense draw weight? Even the one used on horseback? I would not use native american combat to judge the horse cultures. Bit like using north european infantry to decide what roman infantry were capable of.

I think I read somewhere that combining missiles and a charge meant forming a testudo was out of the question (testudo being v vulnerable to a charge as it's such a specialised formation..) In fact wasn't the testude pretty much only formed during assaults upon walls?

Caesar himself on various ocassions states his men were driven off defensive ramparts by enemy missiles - I think it's a mistake to think a Roman general ever thought "any missile attack = form the testudo" as a cure-all for incoming missiles. The detailed practicalities are so hard to fathom for us humans without being there and doing it ourselves - some scholar centuries ago sees the testudo depicted in some Roman artwork (seige of jerusalem?) and it locks itself in the cultural consciousness ever after.

The Broken Crescent team separated HA into short range and long range. I think the short bows had heavier arrows and more penetration.

[Iskandar]

The penetration shouldn't occur unless it's direct shots in close range. Similar disaster didn't happen again I think. I read from Osprey and it says the generals were advised to form two opposing lines, keeping pushing outside to avoid being flanked, and use light legionaries (picked elites in each cohort) to fire javelins under the cover of shield wall to keep horse archers from getting into the "deadly" range.

That's interesting. Could you point me to the source?Also, did these legionaries use skirmisher javelins or pila? Javelins are lighter and have bigger range.
As you said yourself, this was deadly range. Which means the arrow has to puncture scutum, mail and maybe padding with enough force left to kill. That's a lot of power, plus, romans were the heaviest infantry of that time (is it in fact any time? perhaps only dismounted knights were better protected than a legionary from 100BC-100AD).

Anyway, all this still doesn't warrant such a great reduction in their range. Do you know how the game takes it into account?

Slings have a much longer range. Probably 200-500m. But their numbers were always very small.

You're right, of course. I was using the mathematical notation. See what one day of uni can do to you...
Anyway, with modern estimates of 400-450m and ancient sources underlining significant advantage in range I think they merit an overall increase.

There are also many stories dealing with the accuracy of the nomad bow. One I can remember says that the more talented Hungarian horsemen could shoot an arrow between the eyes of an enemy warlord or general from 100 or even 150(!) meters. These are legends however and should be taken with caution.

Yeah, the magyars were very dangerous HA. And even if we take such statement as an exaggeration, it still says that the effective range of mounted steppe archers was incredible in the eyes of the contemporaries and clearly outdistanced thrown javelins.

Carrhae - that's all I will say

Let's not exaggerate. Carrhae was a combination of many factors and remember, most of the casualties were inflicted during the roman retreat, not the battle itself.

24 yards? Didn't the eastern composite bow have an immense draw weight? Even the one used on horseback?

From Wiki:
"As the bow is drawn, energy is stored in the limbs of the bow and transformed into rapid motion when the string is released, with the string transferring this force to the arrow...By pulling the string backwards the archer exerts compressive force on the inner section, or belly, of the limbs as well as placing the outer section, or back, under tension. While the string is held, this stores the energy later released in putting the arrow to flight...
(composite bow)Sinew and horn will store more energy than wood for the same length of bow. The strength can be made similar to that of all-wood bows, with similar draw-length and therefore a similar or greater amount of energy delivered to the arrow from a much shorter bow. Some Mongolian composite bows are known to have been able to produce a draw weight of nearly 160 lb (72.5 Kg)...Almost all composite bows are also recurve bows as the shape curves away from the archer; this design gives higher draw-weight in the early stages of the archer's draw, storing somewhat more total energy for a given final draw-weight"

Simply said, the bow is a mechanism for storing and releasing energy and recurve composite bows were the best at doing this per unit length.

The english longbow and the horsebow of the steppe nomads are of comparable effectivness, only the horsebow is smaller and can be used on horseback. Add to that the fact that sarmatians used an early form of stirrups and you have a bee with a deadly sting

[St Naffatun]

Let's not exaggerate. Carrhae was a combination of many factors

Yes, it was a combination of thousands of factors (pointy ones falling out of the sky)

But I jest I know it wasn't that simple (hence the big grin in my post) I've seen a lot of recreations and there's a Hungarian horse archer that while galloping at 20 mph can hit 10 moving targets on alternating sides of his horse in six seconds (imagine 10,000 guys like that) - but I have not seen a demonstration of anything from a comp bow at longer range against for example a crash test dummy dressed as a legionary with a shield.

Sounds like a job for mythbusters.

[AqD]

That's interesting. Could you point me to the source?Also, did these legionaries use skirmisher javelins or pila? Javelins are lighter and have bigger range.

It's from the Osprey's book Roman Battle Tactics and other sources I have read.

I seem to have confused the formations through. Anyway, you could try to search for "simplex acies" and "duplex acies" - In a battle against overwhelming and surrounding enemies including numidian cavalry, Caesar used a simple line and transformed it to a double line, both facing outwards to defend and retreat.

The javelin (not pilum) troops are called Lanciarii. They're suggested as picked light infantry fighting alongwith common legionaries in the book, but other sources have different explanations.....

As you said yourself, this was deadly range. Which means the arrow has to puncture scutum, mail and maybe padding with enough force left to kill.

The arrows may penetrate scutum but I don't think they can go through shields + mail + padding altogether. They may just hit unarmoured parts such as hands and legs. The actual death number by arrows is very low even in Carrhae, because unlike in RTW soldiers would actually shield up to protect them from missiles, and if they cannot do that they'd break and run no matter how heavy they wear (and generals always try their best to avoid this).

That's a lot of power, plus, romans were the heaviest infantry of that time (is it in fact any time? perhaps only dismounted knights were better protected than a legionary from 100BC-100AD).

Yes there are heavier troops of course (see EB website ). But except for later romans (byzantines) no common soldier would be armed with such good equipments.

Yes, it was a combination of thousands of factors (pointy ones falling out of the sky)

But I jest I know it wasn't that simple (hence the big grin in my post) I've seen a lot of recreations and there's a Hungarian horse archer that while galloping at 20 mph can hit 10 moving targets on alternating sides of his horse in six seconds (imagine 10,000 guys like that) - but I have not seen a demonstration of anything from a comp bow at longer range against for example a crash test dummy dressed as a legionary with a shield.

They also fail to consider the number ratio: a HA-based army is usually much smaller than an infantry based one. Also the field battle is only one type of battles (one of the stupidest IMHO ). If you have an army of entire cavalry you'd have no reason to play like romans or greeks, instead you'd attack the supply lines, annoy and terrify enemy every day and night with random attacks until they mentally collapse.

[HorseArcher]

I don't have too much experience using bows from horseback but as much as I know the bows that steppe nomads used mounted had a (maybe far) greater range than any bows the europeans used. Even in the middle ages aswell as in antiquety.

Like Iskander sad there is lots of archeological proof that the eastern nomads used horn, bone, sinew and other materials.
As much as I know experiment have prooven that these materials are so effective that bows of the same type made with modern materials are still just about half as strong as the original...

There are also many stories dealing with the accuracy of the nomad bow. One I can remember says that the more talented Hungarian horsemen could shoot an arrow between the eyes of an enemy warlord or general from 100 or even 150(!) meters. These are legends however and should be taken with caution.

Besides the native americans didn't use the horse and bow combination for so long - I don't know when they started using horses but I remember to have heard that it only spread after they captured and bread horses brought in by europeans. While the nomads used theese tactics almost since man came in contact with the horse.

I can't say what the ideal move would be but I don't think making the horsebow less effective or its range smaller is not a good idea.

Well, ok, here is the deal. I wouldn't say that the nomad- horseback bows were stronger or shot farther, than lets say a longbow. There is a giant difference between the 2, and giant difference between many other bows in functionality and usage.

Longbows were used (mostly) in such a way of firing volleys , in an arch up towards the sky and then it rained down from above, like artillery guns do today. Of course it could be used from close range to shoot someone straight on, but that wasn't its main function, since the medieval time period, from that close, the infantry would be engaged and you really don't have the comfort to shoot from close-up , without considering to cause friendly fire.

On the other hand, horse-bows were multi-functional, could be used from far, but mainly it was used in straight-shot close range, let's say within a 100 meter radius, to be most effective. Remind you, a "horse archer" is much more than just an archer, since it's semi-armored horse-cavalry as well as a sword wielding infantry if he has to be, and many also trained in martial arts (sounds a bit too much but hey, I'm not lying to you) .

It's a compensation, only having people to travel on horses and the lifestyle, you had to be expandable living as a nomad a multi-function soldier, that performs well enough to be able to work as foot soldiers mounted and artillery.

So anyway, back on the bow, there is another difference. The back-curle bow was many thing beside a war-weapon. It was a hunting tool. While the longbow and various other bows were developed from hunting bows, the horse archer bow was still in use for hunting, while in the medieval world, the longbows were made only specifically (even though it's still an excellent hunting weapon) for war.

So, you have people trained to fire their longbows and shoot people when enlisting into the king's or sultan's army, while the nomadic horsearcher grows up with the damn thing in his hand 24/7 and the art of making a bow and riding a horse is a lifestyle and a necessity to survive and even to get food on the table by hunting.

I hope this helps.

[Quinn Inuit]

That does help, thank you.

As I understand it, though, the really good, high-powered horse archery didn't get started until the Huns introduced the asymmetric bow (their composite bows were also more powerful than previous models, besides the advantages of asymmetry for HAs). Therefore, although Huns, Avars, and definitely Magyars were incredibly powerful horse archers, people in this period wouldn't have had that kind of power.

For the record, my father said the Cheyenne and other HA-using tribes had to get within a few _feet_ if they wanted a kill shot with a bow on a buffalo. Their bows were much weaker, of course, but I think that's still interesting.

[St Naffatun]

If you have an army of entire cavalry you'd have no reason to play like romans or greeks, instead you'd attack the supply lines, annoy and terrify enemy every day and night with random attacks until they mentally collapse.

Indeed, if near an enemy that had superior cavalry in quality and/or number - forage parties were harassed and killed. It's a recurring theme and a good way of putting an army "on their chinstraps" in modern parlance.

No central point to beseige - no "war machine" to cripple. The horse, the bow, the land - a means of providing life's necessities and of waging war contained in the same 3 things.

Had the composite bow not already existed, it would have been "invented" in modern times for sport and "experts" and academics would probably laugh at the notion that someone 5000+ years ago could intuitively grasp the concept of storing more elastic energy by using materials strong in compression and tension respectively.

Ramses the great (I think?) had some beautiful composites buried with him - it would be fascinating to see if by modern scanning techniques we could make an estimate of the power of those bows - merely because they were made in an age before (well not before the huns I guess they were always running around somewhere) but before us Europeans encountered them. If they were ornamental bows then fair enough - but he was or at least portrayed himself as a military hero so maybe they were not just ornaments (maybe I should just look it up hehe)

[Ramiro]

I do not know if this helps but the mongols had two types of arrows. One long and light, for long shots, and other short, and heavy, with a wider head for closer range.

[St Naffatun]

Interesting passage regarding Pharaoh Amenhotep II and composite bows

"

...[he] drew three hundred of the bows hardest to bend in order to examine the workmanship, to distinguish between a worker who doesn't know his profession and the expert.

After choosing a bow without flaw which only he could draw ... he came to the northern shooting range and found they had prepared for him four targets made of Asiatic copper thick as a man's palm. Twenty cubits divided between the poles. When His Majesty appeared in his chariot like Montu with all his power, he reached for his bow and grabbed four arrows with one hand. He speeded his chariot shooting at the targets, like Montu the god. His arrow penetrated the target, cleaving it. He drew his bow again at the second target.

None had ever hit a target like this, none had ever heard that a man shot an arrow a target made of copper and that it should cleave the target and fall to the ground, none but the king, strong and powerful, as Amen made him a conqueror."

It suggests extremely high draw weights were available around 1460 BC and 300 suggests some sort of production line.

Maybe higher tier elite units could be given the full whack - range and power and of course a higher cost as it took months to make a single comp bow and they had to be cared for not a nice bit of kit you would hand out to a bunch of yokels.

Making HA's effectively have the same range as javelins with far less power = people will recruit/hire javelin cavalry instead unless roleplaying historically.