Mounted bow range

[RichardThompson]

May be because they were not the killers you assume they were

(except, perhaps, the Numidians and only in a short time period...... )

I am not suggesting that they were particularly effective killers.

Only that troops with a large shield would be less likely to get killed!

[olivier]

A big shield doesn't help to kill your foes!

[Delbruck]

I really don't think Numidian shields were particularly large or heavy.

Many Asiastic nomads carried equal or better shields, and/or padded tunics that gave some protection. As a general statement I would say the average Asiactic horse archer was better protected than the (practically naked) Numidian.

[pezhetairoi]

This is a response to someone's post far up the list about why the ancients used javelins.

Something that isn't ever really taken into account with war games ... the relative lethality of javelins over arrows.
Having played around with a few javelins (heavy and light) I've noticed a few things.
I think the ancients liked javelins because there is a lot more mass to them. Sure, arrows have range, more ammunition, and probably greater velocity. It sure would suck to be hit with an arrow, but there is some chance that you will live, increased with some armour. If you are lucky an arrow might not even kill your horse.
A javelin on the other hand, it takes guts to ride up close to your enemy and throw one but if you hit the guy he's in serious trouble. Factor the mass of the javelin, the strength of the throw, the momentum of rider and horse. Especially one of the heavier cavalry javelins, but even the lighter ones seem to have more potential for damage especially with a throwing loop attached. The other possible advantage to javelins is "plunging fire". It's easy to arc them up high, and they come shooting back down to hit a potential enemy from a direction he probably isn't looking (they also seem to retain a lot of kinetic energy as they return with gravity). The javelins we threw rarely grazed the target, they either penetrated the hay bails/target bag or missed altogether. The arrows we shot had a tendency to skip, ending up somewhere in the grass.

I bet javelins had a bigger psychological effect than bowfire. They are more "personal", and probably more lethal. I could see why the persians thought they were useful.

As a side note, being untrained in both, I found the bow a lot easier to learn. I was able to hit the target with an arrow after a few trial shots. The javelin takes much more practice.

[rbodleyscott]

The figures on the table should represent the front rank of the unit.

Or the position of the bulk of the unit - which is what is currently assumed.

[philqw78]

As a side note, being untrained in both, I found the bow a lot easier to learn. I was able to hit the target with an arrow after a few trial shots. The javelin takes much more practice.

How far were you shooting / throwing?

[rbodleyscott]

Quoting what one rule set says to change another is not likely to change a rule. The author of the other set may be using a correct historical interpretation or may not. Also, every ruiles author thinks there's is best and is unlikely to take on board ideas from other authors easily.

If you want javelin armed LH to interact differently with bow armed LH historical evidence would be good.

I would have preferred to quote an historical source but I don't know of any that describe such actions in that much detail.

I thought the passage I quoted was a reasonable 'thought experiment'.

The idea that LH with Spear and Shield should be superior in melee to LH Bow seems logical to me.

Richard, you have to bear in mind that I am co-author of DBM and FOG, so am hardly unaware of DBM thinking.

Having reviewed the historical evidence, as Nik says, we came to the conclusion that the DBM theory is "over-valued".

The big picture is that javelin armed LH largely died out, whereas bow-armed light horse continued for centuries after the end of the FOGAM period. That should at least be a clue as to their relative efficacy.

[jlopez]

The big picture is that javelin armed LH largely died out, whereas bow-armed light horse continued for centuries after the end of the FOGAM period. That should at least be a clue as to their relative efficacy.

I suspect that it has more to do with culture than efficiency. Most armies used spears, javelins, bows or whatever in preference to other weapons because that was what daddy and the mates used and you would have looked like a right plonker turning up on the battlefield with some weird, foreign invention. Most armies persevered with their traditional weapons not because they were better but simply because of tradition and probably because retraining large numbers of warriors just wasn't feasible.

Radical changes in armament are, to my knowledge, remarkably few and far between.

To get back to the original point, I'm not entirely convinced there is much need to change the current interaction between different types of LH. Historical match-ups tend to work reasonably well largely because LH with javelins but no swordsmen POA rarely fought horse archers with the swordsmen POA.

[RichardThompson]

The way I see it a BG of light horse that is 4 MU away from the enemy actually has small groups from it moving forwards to shoot then retiring. Sort of the other way round from DBM

Armoured cavalry bowmen in two ranks can also shoot with an effective range of 4MU. Would they also have small groups running forwards? Given that they cannot evade I assume they are not behaving as skirmishers.

[hammy]

The way I see it a BG of light horse that is 4 MU away from the enemy actually has small groups from it moving forwards to shoot then retiring. Sort of the other way round from DBM

Armoured cavalry bowmen in two ranks can also shoot with an effective range of 4MU. Would they also have small groups running forwards? Given that they cannot evade I assume they are not behaving as skirmishers.

No, they wouldn't but they are shooting in a more massed way much like foot bowmen would be doing. Are you saying that foot bowmen should also only shoot 2MU?

[RichardThompson]

The way I see it a BG of light horse that is 4 MU away from the enemy actually has small groups from it moving forwards to shoot then retiring. Sort of the other way round from DBM

Armoured cavalry bowmen in two ranks can also shoot with an effective range of 4MU. Would they also have small groups running forwards? Given that they cannot evade I assume they are not behaving as skirmishers.

No, they wouldn't but they are shooting in a more massed way much like foot bowmen would be doing. Are you saying that foot bowmen should also only shoot 2MU?

No.

Foot bowmen have an effective range and a maximum range.

Why no treat mounted bows in the same way?

Mounted bows were generally less powerful than foot bows so both of these ranges should be shorter.

[nikgaukroger]

Mounted bows were generally less powerful than foot bows so both of these ranges should be shorter.

I think that is an untenable statement and, in fact, in some cases the reverse is true. Thinking about a couple of examples that spring to mind:

1. Bronze age warfare - here the noble maryannu types are equipped with the then cutting edge composite bow and only the best infantry archers are so armed with the rest left with a traditional, fairly short, self bow.

2. Steppe horse archers of nearly all periods are noted as having powerful bows, which get more powerful over time - compare the Skythian, Hunnic and Mongol bows for example. These bows are the ones adopted by the more sedentary peoples to equip their mounted and infantry - an example would be the Romans who use a composite bow for their infantry archers and their bows in the C4th/5th are described as "Hunnic".

3. The Chinese by the time of the Tang use the same Turkic bow for their cavalry and their foot archers, and this is the one used by their steppe opponents as well.


I recall during rules development I argued, unsuccessfully, that mounted bows should have a 6MU long range like foot bows - I can't recall the exact reasons for rejection, however

[Polkovnik]

Mounted bows were generally less powerful than foot bows so both of these ranges should be shorter.

I think that is an untenable statement and, in fact, in some cases the reverse is true. Thinking about a couple of examples that spring to mind:

1. Bronze age warfare - here the noble maryannu types are equipped with the then cutting edge composite bow and only the best infantry archers are so armed with the rest left with a traditional, fairly short, self bow.

2. Steppe horse archers of nearly all periods are noted as having powerful bows, which get more powerful over time - c

3. The Chinese by the time of the Tang use the same Turkic bow for their cavalry and their foot archers, and this is the one used by their steppe opponents as well.

I recall during rules development I argued, unsuccessfully, that mounted bows should have a 6MU long range like foot bows - I can't recall the exact reasons for rejection, however

Maybe the actual bows are not more powerful, but surely the shooting from a certain number of foot troops over a given time period will be more effective than the same number of mounted troops. I would think this would be true for a variety of reasons -
More stable shooting platform
Better accuracy
More arrows can be carried / resupplied
Higher rate of fire

Surely someone who is just shooting arrows can do it better than someone who is shooting arrows and riding a horse at the same time ?

[philqw78]

More stable shooting platform

OK

Better accuracy

Accuracy isn't necessary

More arrows can be carried / resupplied

Surely someone on a horse can carry much more

Higher rate of fire

Why

Surely someone who is just shooting arrows can do it better than someone who is shooting arrows and riding a horse at the same time ?

If well trained, but then horsemen can be well trained

[Cerberias]

Shooting arrows in foot would be easier to train than shooting arrows to the same extent while riding though right?

[MatthewP]

Some people dont need any training to shoot themselves in the foot. It comes naturally.

[nikgaukroger]

Mounted bows were generally less powerful than foot bows so both of these ranges should be shorter.

I think that is an untenable statement and, in fact, in some cases the reverse is true. Thinking about a couple of examples that spring to mind:

1. Bronze age warfare - here the noble maryannu types are equipped with the then cutting edge composite bow and only the best infantry archers are so armed with the rest left with a traditional, fairly short, self bow.

2. Steppe horse archers of nearly all periods are noted as having powerful bows, which get more powerful over time - c

3. The Chinese by the time of the Tang use the same Turkic bow for their cavalry and their foot archers, and this is the one used by their steppe opponents as well.

I recall during rules development I argued, unsuccessfully, that mounted bows should have a 6MU long range like foot bows - I can't recall the exact reasons for rejection, however

Maybe the actual bows are not more powerful, but surely the shooting from a certain number of foot troops over a given time period will be more effective than the same number of mounted troops. I would think this would be true for a variety of reasons -
More stable shooting platform

Some mounted shooters used stationary shower shooting techniques - Sasanids, ghilman at times, etc. - which I suspect for a trained man and mount would be pretty stable. Also, I believe, that when moving if you shoot at the highest point of the horses gait it is, effectively, a stable point.

Better accuracy

See above.

More arrows can be carried / resupplied

I'm fairly sure a man on a horse can carry more than one on foot.

Higher rate of fire

I think the highest rate of shooting with a bow I have come across is for mounted - ghilman/mamluks at bursts of 5 in a couple of seconds (apparantly).

Surely someone who is just shooting arrows can do it better than someone who is shooting arrows and riding a horse at the same time ?

Training would be the key.

[david53]

Shooting arrows in foot would be easier to train than shooting arrows to the same extent while riding though right?

Not if your whole life was around horses ie Huns Skythians Mongols ect these peoples lives depended on their skill in riding and shooting.

[Jilu]

it all makes me wonder why the curved bow was not differntiated from the regular bow....

[nikgaukroger]

it all makes me wonder why the curved bow was not differntiated from the regular bow....

Simplicity in the rules. Also, as it is generally the better troops who get the better kit you can argue that the quality aspects of the rules cater for such differences. However, it is mainly for simplicity, otherwise where do you stop?