Horse archers

[pannonian]

Buffalos are easier to kill than humans because they are tougher (the arrow has further to penetrate and doesn't penetrate as far).

The main problem with horse archers on the RTW engine is the autoresolving. This image should tell the whole story:

As you can see, the game places HAs at a distinct disadvantage (BTW, I am fighting against a full stack of Seleucid chalkaspides). This doesn't help Sarmatia or Parthia at all.

Th idea has been floated of secondary HPs that are only used in autoresolve.

[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.

[Quinn Inuit]

Well, bear in mind that a lot of people did use jav cav, and to very good effect. You didn't necessarily need HA to do damage.

You have a good point about the strength of those composite bows, but I'd like to know more about the range at which he was shooting...not to mention how much of that was exaggeration of Pharoah's feats such as was commonly practiced by their scribes.

[St Naffatun]

I'd like to know more about the range at which he was shooting...not to mention how much of that was exaggeration of Pharoah's feats such as was commonly practiced by their scribes.

That crossed my mind but if we read between the lines Amenhotep II is not sitting on his ass delegating the task of picking a bow out to someone else. He is going himself and carefully checking the workmanship of a large number of bows.

Anyone testing 300 high draw composite bows for flaws is not going to be a little sissy, that is hard physical work - and picking out "the ones with no flaws" paints a picture of a man with a keen interest and knowledge of weapons, before the "ooh" and "aaah" part of his archery display.

Regarding range yes he says nothing about range but places the distance the targets are apart so presumably pharaoh is riding parrallel to the targets on his chariot and shooting to the side hitting each one as he passes - so presumably that's the traditional technique with the arrows clutched in the left hand ready to be quickly notched for the next shot.

Unrelated but interesting the speed of the chariot and the distance apart the targets are would show how quickly he is popping off the shots - either way it does suggest a degree of martial skill. All this nearly 2000 years before the huns (?!), and we know exposure to the Hyksos asiatic people introduced the Egyptions to the composite bow so they were probably copying others designs.

I guess there's no records but you can well imagine a pharaoh saying "these foreigners have much better bows than us, I want you to work out how it's done" or maybe examination of one acquired (looted from a battle or bought by traders etc).

Which further suggests people were running around in asia with these powerful bows well before the Egyptians encountered the Hyksos. Pretty mind blowingly far back in time in other words.

[Traianus IX]

This is how I see it works.
Since HA's composite bows (CB) are recurved they provide roughly the same amount of stored energy when fully pulled, as long bows.
It's about the way those differnt bows use the energy. Since CB is shorter so is the pull needed for loading it and the distance that sinew pushes
an arrow untill this leaves a bow. Long bow on the other hand requires longer pull and its sinew than pushes arrow a longer distance. This to
me looks like more effective way of converting its stored energy (Newtonmeters)to launching (Watts) of an arrow .
I'am not sure but I believe that due to its recurved design CB doesn't just use all its energy and some of it remains still stored
in a bow after a shot.Hmm?!?
But anyway, THE impact power is determined by the "mass of the subject and it's velocity" so regardless the bow
you use it's also the matter of arrow used. I suppose that HA used shorter arrows and that means lighter also.
So said, even if the CB launched an arrow with tremendous power (Newtonmeters), it kept its "deadly penetrating force" only for short distance.
Whereas the long bows shoots longer and than heavier arrows by the same speed as CB does. And since it is heavier it carries its deadly
force much longer despite loosing velocity.
Historically there were well known examples of insane penetrating force of arrows launched by long bow at great distances.
(I know this is much different time scale)
After watching few of those videos with HAs I'm not really sure if they were really able shoot backwards at full-full speed when
chased by other cavalry. I know many history sources say so, but still...errrgh?!?! You know how crazy fast can horse run!?
I would rather say that their small horses were better built for stamina than speed.

Well, on the end of the day, historically those HA armies were defeated, suffered casualties so it means they had to approach
an enemy way much closer than on safe "long range fire" distance.
All by all I definitely stand for significant decrease of HA "deadly range". I just don't thik they were effective enough against
heavy infanry from greater distance. Their arrows just didn't carry sufficient amount of deadly force for more than 30-50m!?
I think, can be wrong. Their long range fire might have been effective against not armoured units though.


aaand the last one. I would suggest that all units carring big shield should get kind of bonus against arrows. I don't believe that
an arrow would penetrete a shield unless this is hit straight upright. Just a small angle causes a huge drop in penetretion force.

[Caligula Caesar]

@Iskander: I am not saying that the HAs are too weak, as you saw by how much I hurt the enemy before I was forced to retreat (I forgot to write the word "autoresolve in the last sentence...). With cataphracts that army would be almost invincible. The problem is (as pannonian rightly recognised) their weakness in autoresolve.

[Iskandar]

@Iskander: I am not saying that the HAs are too weak, as you saw by how much I hurt the enemy before I was forced to retreat (I forgot to write the word "autoresolve in the last sentence...). With cataphracts that army would be almost invincible. The problem is (as pannonian rightly recognised) their weakness in autoresolve.

That's what I meant - the secondary hp are taken into account in autoresolve and increasing them could tip the scales in the right direction.

As far as "manual' battles go - you've got a full stack there; of course it will be invincible with a few cataphracts in it and controlled by the player. For more enjoyable and historical experience, try beating the full Seleucid stack with half-stack of yours with 1 or 2 units of cataphracts. Now that I think of it, I almost never play with full-stacks myself, always between 1/4 to 3/4.

[Quinn Inuit]

Few things:
1) We've already got extra hp for HA in autoresolve. Do you think we should add more? (I'm quite open to that, just curious).
2) Definitely don't make HA-only armies. Nobody really did that, except for harassment. If you want to actually win in a realistic manner, you need heavy cav.
3) That selection Iskander quoted was extremely interesting. Am I correct in assuming that it was talking about early Parthian-era bows, as well as later ones and Sassanid-era bows? Technology wasn't static during this time. Also, what's the current range on these guys like, and how should it compare to infantry archers?

[Iskandar]

Few things:
1) We've already got extra hp for HA in autoresolve. Do you think we should add more? (I'm quite open to that, just curious).
2) Definitely don't make HA-only armies. Nobody really did that, except for harassment. If you want to actually win in a realistic manner, you need heavy cav.
3) That selection Iskander quoted was extremely interesting. Am I correct in assuming that it was talking about early Parthian-era bows, as well as later ones and Sassanid-era bows? Technology wasn't static during this time. Also, what's the current range on these guys like, and how should it compare to infantry archers?

1) My opinion is that they're better than before, but still need a little more.

2) The game can't represent that quite right, but usually the arrow barrage would soften the enemy up, killing some, wounding others, generally demoralizing and then a charge of the heavy cavalry would break them. Game design still cannot reflect rightly the mental effects of a battle or injuries reducing the effectiveness of a warrior, but it's the best so far. One more thing, with armies like that it will be a rarity when you do not get a heroic victory. You'll have 10-star generals in no time.

3)Yes and I stick to the opinion that the bow-making did not change significantly during that time. Technology was not static, of course, the Sassanians, e.g., developed a device allowing them to shoot five arrows at once. But the bow did not change its parameters much. From what I know from general reading on the topic only the Mongol and Turkish bow would have had better design. The Hun, Bulgar, Magyar, Cuman bows show similar (or only slightly better) numbers.

What do you mean by "current range"? In reenactments? Or in-game stats for the units?

The book, nor any other source I've read, distinguishes between cavalry and infantry bows of the Sassanians. Personally, I don't think they felt the need to invent better bows for the infantry. They were already that good.

I'd like to add that (also from the book) the Sassanians, in unison with ancient tradition, carried 30 arrows in a quiver. (Meaning the Parthians must have been also around that number.)

My impression though is that they often had a second quiver and/or a supply train of arrows nearby, since emphasis was on the (accuracy, power, and) speed and volume of delivery, ergo large number of arrows in total.

Edit: I'm wrong about that. I didn't look at the right numbers and I'm not sure I have credible sources on all said bows. Sorry, I'm already half-asleep.

[pannonian]

1) My opinion is that they're better than before, but still need a little more.

2) The game can't represent that quite right, but usually the arrow barrage would soften the enemy up, killing some, wounding others, generally demoralizing and then a charge of the heavy cavalry would break them. Game design still cannot reflect rightly the mental effects of a battle or injuries reducing the effectiveness of a warrior, but it's the best so far.

It's already represented to some extent by armour, which decreases as they're hit, until they run out and lose 1 HP. The charge bonus of heavy cav already does most of that damage in one blow, but if you soften the enemy up with arrows, AFAIK your infantry will find it easier to finish them when it comes to hand to hand.

[Iskandar]

It's already represented to some extent by armour, which decreases as they're hit, until they run out and lose 1 HP. The charge bonus of heavy cav already does most of that damage in one blow, but if you soften the enemy up with arrows, AFAIK your infantry will find it easier to finish them when it comes to hand to hand.

Well, I guess the raving perfectionist in me has snuck out of his prison...

[Quinn Inuit]

Ok, I'm up for adding another autoresolve HP to HA. I'll add that to the to-do list.

That's odd. Why would you give infantry and cavalry the same bow? Wouldn't you want to give infantry a longer, more powerful one, since they can field it?

Sorry, by "current range," I meant the current range in-game.

So the Sassanian bow of 400 A.D. was functionally identical to the Parthian bow of 200 B.C.?

[AqD]

Ok, I'm up for adding another autoresolve HP to HA. I'll add that to the to-do list.

That's odd. Why would you give infantry and cavalry the same bow? Wouldn't you want to give infantry a longer, more powerful one, since they can field it?

Infantry didn't have better bows. The best bows there were probably the scythian bow used by roman auxiliary archers and parthian bow, both were designed for HA. Foot archers may have longer range, but considering that most of horse archers are professional, elite archers trained since childhood, common foot archers may not outshoot them at all. It's worth noting that Romans recorded parthian horse archers outshoot their foot archers (don't remember the source, anyone knows? )

[Wien1938]

I would suggest that 60 yard range would be a good average for horse archers. Phil Barker of DBA/DBM/DBMM suggest that horse archers shot only at point blank range against infantry and at close range in cavalry melee. Most horse archers would be massacred by heavy cavalry in a melee, so the emphasis for HA would be to keep the range open.

[St Naffatun]

Phil Barker of DBA/DBM/DBMM suggest that horse archers shot only at point blank range against infantry

I would like every single arrow to count too by getting up close and slamming them right into the enemy.

Doesn't mean they HAD to get up close to do it. You don't have to tell master archers about the importance of using ammunition as effectively as possible.

The west has a long history of over-estimating itself and underestimating the east due to a justified inferiority complex and it comes through in historical revision.

A primary source states the horse archers outdistanced Roman foot archers but never mind that... because some bloke with acronyms after his name born 2k years later says otherwise. Must be true then.

Bloke down the pub said, so it must be true.

[Quinn Inuit]

Sorry, been mapping all week.

Well, Phil Barker is a military historian, too. I don't think his opinion can be ignored on this.

I was just reading the other day about the Battle of the Jaxartes, where Alexander the Great pwned a horse archer army. He used a detachment of light horse as bait, then trapped them with his infantry and his heavy cavalry.

If the HA could stay nearly 200 yards from their targets, I don't see infantry or slower cavalry being able to trap them effectively. They must have gotten pretty close in order to be trapped.

Can anyone else comment on this? I haven't been able to find many sources for this battle online.

[pannonian]

Sorry, been mapping all week.

Well, Phil Barker is a military historian, too. I don't think his opinion can be ignored on this.

I was just reading the other day about the Battle of the Jaxartes, where Alexander the Great pwned a horse archer army. He used a detachment of light horse as bait, then trapped them with his infantry and his heavy cavalry.

If the HA could stay nearly 200 yards from their targets, I don't see infantry or slower cavalry being able to trap them effectively. They must have gotten pretty close in order to be trapped.

Can anyone else comment on this? I haven't been able to find many sources for this battle online.

Here's a reading of Arrian's account of the battle. It quotes from the passage, and tries to make sense of it.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sar...an4-4-6-7.html

[Quinn Inuit]

Great find! Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I'd forgotten about the situation with the Ten Thousand, but he makes an excellent point. I highly recommend everyone reads that.

To sum up, he makes a convincing argument that HA* were not effective beyond a certain range, and also needed to stay moving to avoid being trapped by other cavalry. In this sense, then, the game has it precisely backwards. HA could flee _more_ quickly from a Cantabrian Circle, not less quickly, and could not flee as quickly if they were shooting from a stopped position. I don't think either of those are possible to fix, though.

A corollary of this seems to be that the HA had to get fairly close to their targets to attack. It probably doesn't matter if you're stopped to shoot if you're nearly 200 yards out, since you'll see them coming with much more time to get away. Arrian also specifically mentions Alexander sending out his Agrianians to attack the HA. Agrianians were armed with javelins, not slings or bows, so it seems unlikely that they would have been able to get within range if the HA were firing from 175 yards.

His point about the Ten Thousand supports this, IMO. HA apparently could not effectively function against a relatively small corps of slingers and archers (IIRC it was mostly slingers). If they could operate at long range, there'd be no reason why they couldn't trade shots with the slingers. But if they had to get up close and then slow down for risk of tripping over dead friends, it would make perfect sense that they would avoid contact. Even if the could do some damage closer in, the trip in and then the trip back out would be like runs through a Cuisinart.**


*Of the time. Huns, Magyars, and Mongols come much later, and may have had more powerful bows.
**Bonus points for catching this reference.

[Wien1938]

Quinn makes a very good point here. Mixed cavalry and archers was a tactic that the horse peoples were very unfamiliar with but was familiar in the Greek west.
So yes. Horse archers can shoot at long range...but without doing any harm. They're most effective with lots of room to shoot, retreat and return. Hence they should have a short range.