This is why I stand next to or behind Debaser when we head to the range or to an archery event! Having seen him shoot quite a few arrows, I’m fairly certain he is just being modest as well. The cougar target this Sunday was 50yds, and he hit it quite well. Granted, no arrows were flying in our direction, the target wasn’t moving, and he could take his time, but I’d bet that even out further, with some more practice, would be well within range of modern equipment.
The traditional class shooters, on the other hand, use a recurve design (mostly), and generally are limited to about 30yds. Considering that engagements of armies back in medeval times were HUGE numbers of people, I’d bet that 30yds wouldn’t clear your front line of advance. This fact would require the lofted shots that are shown in the movies.
In addition, bows of “yore” were often much higer poundage than the modern bows of today, which would tend to increase the range. I remember a show which dealt with the ancient weapons, and seemed to indicate that it took some serious muscle to draw and use an old longbow design. This would make sense, as they were attempting to not only clear friendly troops, but the space between the advancing lines of infantry/cavalry.
Did anyone watch that show on History Channel, the one that used Rome:Total War graphics engine to recreate battles? They had a show on the battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans held off thousands of Persians. At first Xerxes wanted to be sporting, so he kept sending his ground troops at the Spartans, and the Spartans kept chewing them up and spitting them out. After losing thounds of men, Xerxes finally relented and had his archers finish them from a distance.
WAG: by firing on command, the archers would maintain their endurance. I could see how they become exhausted in the first two minutes of battle if they were allowed to fire as quickly as their skill and adrenaline allowed.
Which were in 1346 and 1356 respectively, whereas Agincourt was 1415. According to the show the recent development and deployment of steel armour (no doubt accelerated by those two memorable disasters for the French) changed things completely and the longbow was no longer the decisive weapon against armoured knights it was 60 years before.
Not only could the bodkin head not penetrate steel armour, it could not even dent it significantly; the soft iron just bent. The English got lucky this time.
The tetsudo formation was excellent for protection from arrows. The downside of course is the soldiers could do little else while in that formation (most notably move around the battlefield very well) and as I understand it this formation was very vulnerable to cavalry charges. That does not make it bad of course…in the right situation it may be the best thing to do. Just pointing out there are always tradeoffs.
slightly related hijack (since there seem to be so many knowledgable on the topic here). What difference (in penetration/distance/skill of use) is there between “western” bows and the Japanese bows? I have heard that the Japanese designed somehow allowed for greater distance or some such but doubt it myself.
I’d also like to hear from someone in the know. I’ve heard that the design allowed for longbow power/range while on horseback. But I’m the same boat as rabbit and don’t know if that is accurate or not.
The Asian steppe cultures used short bows with less range than european longbows. They made up for this with their tactics: swoop in on a fast horse and let fly from 20 feet away. This was also used by the arabs against the crusaders.
Tactics aside, Magyar and hunnish short bows had a much more efficient design than longbows. So although they didn’t have the overall range of the longbow, they had a much better range than other bows with the same draw weight.
I don’t have much to add to the excellent historical stuff already presented here. Just two notes:
You want cinematic arrows? Rent the recent movie Hero; it must have more arrows than any other movie.
I’m sure many folks here are familiar with the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism). In our happy fun “battles”, where hundreds of guys in armor hit each other with sticks, we do have a form of archery, using special arrows with padded tips. (I usually take one right in the chest.) I would love to see them fired in dramatic volleys, but because of a) the relatively small number of archers and b) the close range usually involved, the archers tend to act as snipers, picking off individual targets. One of the many ways our little get-togethers differ from either a real battle, or serious reenactment. (Still fun as hell, of course.)
That was me. I’d read in a recent bio of Genghis Khan that the Mongols made their arrows so that they couldn’t be knocked by their opponents, but they themselves could you either sort of arrow, so the Mongols always had the advantage. I didn’t see how this could work (Phillips head arrows?), and the book didn’t say, so I started a thread on it.
Well, Cal…one possible explaination is that the Mongols used blunt-nocked arrows, where the tail fitted into a pocket on the bowstring. Without a groove, these arrows would be useless to the opponent. I have no idea if this is even remotely correct, but it is workable!
One other possibility that the pocket theory is that the Mongol bowstrings were thinner than those of the Europeans. They could then cut their notches thinner.
The thick notched European arrow would fit on the narrow string of the Mongol, but not the thin notch on the thick string.
I have no idea if that is right, but that was the visual I got when you described it.
Having seen him shoot quite a few arrows, I’m fairly certain he is just being modest as well. The cougar target this Sunday was 50yds, and he hit it quite well. Granted, no arrows were flying in our direction, the target wasn’t moving, and he could take his time, but I’d bet that even out further, with some more practice, would be well within range of modern equipment.