More proof that people love to overrate the effectiveness of bows...

[cnv2855]

The myth that the bow, and by extension the longbow, were the atomic bombs of medieval warfare is slowly being quelled. There have been tests shown that the strongest of bows could not even cause injury to mere mail were it supported by a gambeson. But I came across this quote regarding the Third Crusade, where English knights were harassed by Ayyubid bowmen:

"Baha al-Din also described the difference in power between the Crusader crossbow and the bows of his own army. He saw Frankish infantrymen with from one to ten arrows sticking from their armoured backs marching along with no apparent hurt, whilst the crossbows struck down both horse and man amongst the Muslims.<sup>[10]

Armor, and definitely mail, are extremely underrated. A properly equipped knight had was usually killed by specialized weapons, or surrounded, mobbed, dragged to the earth and slaughtered. There's a reason they dominated the battlefield during the medieval period. The sooner this, "the longbow" destroyed everything because of Crecy & Agincourt myth is dissipated the sooner we can actually learn the truth about medieval warfare. Armor was worn for a reason and it wasn't because it "looked good".

Mike Loades has a great theory as to why the longbow truly won Crecy. The Knights, trudging through mud, fatigued were being dismounted by the arrows and also taking the impacts. While the arrows were not lethal, being hit by a projectile with a certain amount of mass is greatly taxing. He argues that bowmen actually fatigued the knights to the point that when battle was joined, the longbowmen, in lighter armor, rested, and in great defensive positions, were able to mob up and mob up on the charging knights who by that time probably were completely exhausted.</sup>

[cnv2855]

Going Medieval on H2 had a test where a longbow, a very large one with significant draw, could not penetrate a gambeson & mail combination at point blank range, even with specialized arrows.
Someone needs to put it on Youtube.

I also meant Agincourt and not Crecy.

[Sharpe]

I disagree, but surely if the bow even wore down the knights at Crecy surely that is effective? A weapon doesn't have to kill outright to be effective.

Also this is the wrong forum - try the History one down in the D and D.

[JaM]

Yet still, people romanticize the Bow over other weapons.. I saw a lot of tests where flintlock musket easily outperformed bow at range of 60-100m, yet everybody thinks bow is the more accurate weapon.. and same with Ancient times, when bows used much lighter arrows - everybody expects them to easily kill armored Legionaries because of Carhae myth (no legionaries were not killed by arrows, they were fatigued by Parthian tactics, ran out of water supply, divided force to get out of that desert while main column lead by Crassus was constantly attacked until completely disordered and destroyed. Other column managed to get out to safety)

[craziii]

the fact that the mongols created the biggest empire on earth was at least 50% due to bows. horse + bows = field battle domination. of course strat n tactics were part of it, but they wouldn't work if it weren't for their bows n horses.

what does that fact make op and people like him look?

[Destraex]

Medieval armour was not as "tiring" as people think. This was discussed at length by experts ( qualified historians and re-enactors who write papers on medieval weapons).

Look at suzerains posts especially. He is a qualified historian that also makes armour and is writing a paper on a particularly nasty medieval weapon.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...uzerain+armour

The current debate is about whether viking maille could be used for swimming. The answer is yes surprisingly.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ng-in-a-Puddle

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...uzerain+armour

[Mahatma Gandhi]

the fact that the mongols created the biggest empire on earth was at least 50% due to bows. horse + bows = field battle domination. of course strat n tactics were part of it, but they wouldn't work if it weren't for their bows n horses.

what does that fact make op and people like him look?

Well, Im just going out on a limb here, but w/the other postings and some of the findings I recall from the "Going Medival" show (yes I realize its TV) was that a horse has more stamina than a man and being repeatedly hit by arrows over the course of several hours would be rather taxing on a persons capabilities to defend ones self. I could be wrong though.

I recall also reading that many of wounds were not penetrating wounds but cumulative blunt force trauma blows to the head/torso and lower extremities. I suppose you could draw some examples from the blows that say NFL'ers take even w/a helmet on. Staggering around dazed, confused, not exactly at the top of their game from concussions. Blood clots, hemorrhaging internally would certainly play a factor days or week + afterwards.

------------------------------------------------------------------reason for edit-------------------------------------------------------------

I must have been completely drunk-distracted-or injured perhaps by a stray arrow (to the knee) or something. I totally misread your post thinking you were saying bows weren't effective, when that's not what you're saying at all, in fact the OP is making the claim they weren't.
But, I didn't want to edit out the quote though otherwise my edit wouldn't make sense or.......something.

[peoplescavalry]

I feel that in pooh poohing the longbows performance you are missing the point ( haha).Of more importance was the way it was deployed at the major battles where it was pivotal to victory, in mass and in control. 5000 archers x 10 aimed pulls per minute is a killing zone of 50,000 arrows per minute landing on you, not nice at all.

[ferres]

the fact that the mongols created the biggest empire on earth was at least 50% due to bows. horse + bows = field battle domination. of course strat n tactics were part of it, but they wouldn't work if it weren't for their bows n horses.

what does that fact make op and people like him look?

It is not fair to compare the Mongols with other types of archers whether on horse or foot. It's like comparing special forces units with militia men. Mongols were highly trained and highly disciplined compared to most others before them. Add unbridled maneuverability and tactic and you have a complete weapon system difficult to match in it's day. The archer on horse combo is a trademark of the Steppes people.

[ferres]

I feel that in pooh poohing the longbows performance you are missing the point ( haha).Of more importance was the way it was deployed at the major battles where it was pivotal to victory, in mass and in control. 5000 archers x 10 aimed pulls per minute is a killing zone of 50,000 arrows per minute landing on you, not nice at all.

Perfectly sound if you know which direction the enemy is coming from.

[Aenima]

Very interesting thread. Over the years I've come to realise that armour actually was good blocking blows, unlike everything you watch or play would have you believe. Probably the main thing that drilled it into my head that armour actually serves a purpose would have to be (embarassingly, I suppose) the TV show "Deadliest Warrior." The number of times that they tested weapons against armour or shields and they had no real effect was incredible, especially when the same weapon was demonstrated to absolutely shred human-torso gel dummies.


However, I would think that concentrated arrow fire would just be disastrous on morale, and if nothing else, tiring. Even if you're wearing armour and have a shield, it must be terrifying as hell to have arrows fall all around you (not to mention that they would be wounding/killing at least a few guys) and even if armour can stop the arrow from penetrating into flesh, I'd imagine it would feel like getting smacked in the chest by one hell of a punch.

After all, if they were utterly useless, I strongly doubt they'd have been used for so long.

[Butan]

I think that "medieval era" movies are pretty much wrong on how you dealt lethal blows and what not.

One thing that could be compared to the "reality" of impact on a well-protected soldier is what "modern era" movies got right : bullets against bulletproof vest, what happens when you get shot. Its the same kind of reaction with Cut-Pierce-Blunt melee/ranged medieval weapons against leather/mail/plate armours.



Basically, even if you wear armour made to protect you from a certain kind of weaponry :

- It will still deal blunt damage and possible concussion - loss of consciousness - lethal impact (with enough force)
- It will increase your fatigue
- It will decrease your morale
- Weak points in the armour can be pierced
- Some part of the body are not covered



On the topic of bows, I too think that against armoured targets you shouldnt see as many casualties as what we sees in many movies. One thing that R2 got right to be honest. You will need to fire all your stock of arrows to kill a single unit of heavy armoured soldiers.

[Mono Ribeiro]

Well spears are also the oldest and longest used weapons in history. Bows and Spears have the same advantage relatively cheap and when raising men from the country they were more likely to have used bows in hunting and were auxiliaries to the main heavy infantry/cavalry used. Also Agincourt has already been disproved as being won by the power of the bow and instead being entirely the inability for the French to keep their upstart nobles in line and not try to attack an awkward position. Terrain won Agincourt.

But then again even if the wider idea of medieval warfare is corrected in regards to armour and its effectiveness, you will have enormous resistance from people believing that Katana's are magical super weapons that can cut through the Sun.

[The Roman Republic]

The myth that the bow, and by extension the longbow, were the atomic bombs of medieval warfare is slowly being quelled. There have been tests shown that the strongest of bows could not even cause injury to mere mail were it supported by a gambeson. But I came across this quote regarding the Third Crusade, where English knights were harassed by Ayyubid bowmen:

"Baha al-Din also described the difference in power between the Crusader crossbow and the bows of his own army. He saw Frankish infantrymen with from one to ten arrows sticking from their armoured backs marching along with no apparent hurt, whilst the crossbows struck down both horse and man amongst the Muslims.<sup>[10]

Armor, and definitely mail, are extremely underrated. A properly equipped knight had was usually killed by specialized weapons, or surrounded, mobbed, dragged to the earth and slaughtered. There's a reason they dominated the battlefield during the medieval period. The sooner this, "the longbow" destroyed everything because of Crecy & Agincourt myth is dissipated the sooner we can actually learn the truth about medieval warfare. Armor was worn for a reason and it wasn't because it "looked good".

Mike Loades has a great theory as to why the longbow truly won Crecy. The Knights, trudging through mud, fatigued were being dismounted by the arrows and also taking the impacts. While the arrows were not lethal, being hit by a projectile with a certain amount of mass is greatly taxing. He argues that bowmen actually fatigued the knights to the point that when battle was joined, the longbowmen, in lighter armor, rested, and in great defensive positions, were able to mob up and mob up on the charging knights who by that time probably were completely exhausted.</sup>

Your only talking about one section in history, around 1189 to 1415, when the bow and arrow has been used for the last 64,000 years to kill or hunt and been in many cases the turning point of a battle. At that current period of which you talk about was when various types of advancement in armoury and metals were being made to become "anti-missle" armour types are then obviously going to diminish the effects of them.

yet 1279 was the pinnacle of the Mongolian Empire, just look at The battle of Kalka River in 1223, I could go and on, but quite frankly what you said or claim to say with theory's are in the end just theory's, which aren't factual until proven.

*1,800th Post

[Mono Ribeiro]

Well spears are also the oldest and longest used weapons in history. Bows and Spears have the same advantage relatively cheap and when raising men from the country they were more likely to have used bows in hunting and were auxiliaries to the main heavy infantry/cavalry used. Also Agincourt has already been disproved as being won by the power of the bow and instead being entirely the inability for the French to keep their upstart nobles in line and not try to attack an awkward position. Terrain won Agincourt.

But then again even if the wider idea of medieval warfare is corrected in regards to armour and its effectiveness, you will have enormous resistance from people believing that Katana's are magical super weapons that can cut through the Sun.

On the bit about spears, all I am saying is that spears are infact the most successful weapon in history at least until the Napoleonic Wars, however despite them being obsolete now they were overall the most effective weapon ever made in human history.
What I am saying is despite this there is really nothing you can do against the romanticisation of the bow/katana. Maybe it is because the bow is the closest thing to resemble skillful shooting of the time, even if the crossbow was a far superior weapon, and as a result is the first thing most people connect with their modern equivalent the rifle.

All I know is if the world goes to and we run out of ammo the first major power will be the one who controls and organises divisions of spears and cavalry support. Not a bunch of weeaboos with Katanas and robin hood wannabe's with bows.

[BigEl_nobody]

If the bow was such a weapon in military warfare, why was it then used over 1000 years?
Maybe the killing potential of bows against heavy armored troops gets overrated, but surely not the overall effectiveness of bows in military warfare. Butan already mentioned some interesting points regarding the effectiveness against armoured troops, but also imagine you get shot by arrows for hours nonstop. You can´t simulate that by shooting an armoured dummy with an arrow once to analyse the effectiveness of a bow...

And on top of that armies never purely consisted of heavy armoured troops which could withstand unending waves of arrows for a certain period of time. What about light armoured troops, horses and skirmishers? Against those Bows were extremely lethal.

[Vaðarholmr]

Moved to the VV.

[Paleo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PiClEqqDig

lol watch this

[ferres]

Your only talking about one section in history, around 1189 to 1415, when the bow and arrow has been used for the last 64,000 years to kill or hunt and been in many cases the turning point of a battle. At that current period of which you talk about was when various types of advancement in armoury and metals were being made to become "anti-missle" armour types are then obviously going to diminish the effects of them.

yet 1279 was the pinnacle of the Mongolian Empire, just look at The battle of Kalka River in 1223, I could go and on, but quite frankly what you said or claim to say with theory's are in the end just theory's, which aren't factual until proven.

*1,800th Post

An archer on a horse is a different weapon system. Might as well compare a mounted lancer to a spearman, entirely different weapon systems. The OP was referring to the typical archer not a specialized horse archer which were not particularly common in large numbers until the Mongols came about. And in case you point out the Parthians, even they couldn't mount the numbers the Mongols put to field. Plus the Mongol bow is almost comparative to the English longbow in effectiveness, only a lot more mobile and in greater numbers.

Modern comparison, a cannon to a fast moving tank.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Mongols did not use long bows they had composite bows

those Mongol composite bows:
Composite Bow > Long Bow

In the 1600s and 1700s the Mongols adopted Matchlocks in huge numbers (mostly in Turkestan though)