Empire of man series

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:17 -0500, "deowll" <deowll.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net>
wrote:


>>>My data is that these long bows weren't war bows. A warbow starts with a
>>>draw weight of at least 120 pounds and goes up to the limit of human
>>>ability. There is little point in having a force equiped with weapons
>>>(bows)
>>>the other side's armor is largely going to negate. The same guy had a show
>>>testing an ancient greek shield against a very good bow and the shield was
>>>very effective. Only limited penitration, a few inches. They could have
>>>withstood standing in the shade of clouds of arrows as the Greeks seem to
>>>have done on occasion.
>>>
>>
>> was talking about longbows on another board lately and it seems that
>> the standard issue english longbows were more like 90-100 lb based on
>> some bows they recovered from the mary rose. that should be well
>> within what a man can achieve in conditioning in 6-12 months say.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
>
>If you have sources about this topic that I or these people don't know about
>please feel free to share. Until you do I'm forced to conclude that a bow
>like that is about good enough to get you seriously killed. Tests on
>reproduction armor and shields dating back as far as the bronze age show
>that the bows you are talking about failed to get the job done. This
>strongly implies that a very seriously pissed off man with a stabbing spear
>is going to get much closer to you than you ever wanted unless you can run
>real fast.
>
>
>

the article i read didn't speak to the mary rose bows being weakened
by soaking in seawater.

i'm not so sure i'd write off 90lb bows as battlefield weapons.
typically a lot of the guys you'd shoot at were neither well armoured
nor shielded.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:01:22 -0700, Offbreed
<offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>mike weber wrote:
>
>> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
>> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
>> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
>> well-bracketed mortar fire.
>>
>Wouldn't that be one reason for ranks? The front rank blocks direct
>fire, and the back ranks raise their shields for plunging fire.
>
>Agreed on how many people would have metal protecting them. That stuff
>was expensive.

for most of history warfare has been gang fights writ large.
disciplined formations were a rarity. during the height of the
english bowmen the best disciplined troops in an army they faced would
have been the knights and they were warriors not soldiers.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"mike weber" <fairportfan.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd7673pmcb9ta7iegbfjllb2c4g4b0h839@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:17 -0500, "deowll" <deowll.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>If you have sources about this topic that I or these people don't know
>>about
>>please feel free to share. Until you do I'm forced to conclude that a bow
>>like that is about good enough to get you seriously killed. Tests on
>>reproduction armor and shields dating back as far as the bronze age show
>>that the bows you are talking about failed to get the job done. This
>>strongly implies that a very seriously pissed off man with a stabbing
>>spear
>>is going to get much closer to you than you ever wanted unless you can run
>>real fast.
>
> Which, of course, explains Agincourt.
>
> Consider that, as Terry Pratchett once remarked: "To an arrow, mail
> looks like a collection of holes laced together with wire."
>
> Also consider that the majority of what the greyfeathers were likely
> to encounter in an actual battle of the day would *not* be wearing
> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
> well-bracketed mortar fire.
>

You should have read the article I linked and done your home work. I can
only assume from your post that you have no clue who said what in this
thread.


The bows this guy was calling an English warbow were about half the power of
the bows found on the Mary Rose when new.

And Mike. Guess what. When tested good mail certainly will stop an arrow
fired from a wimpy bow. Good mail will do a decent job of stopping arrows
fired from anything less than a God awful strong bow.

The French knights had good armor. The English archers had bows that most
likely all had a pull of well over 120 pounds. Based on the dimensions of
the bows from the Mary Rose suggests over 150. This dude was claiming a high
was maybe 100 tops. This does not match history nor archeology nor does it
match what happens in tests.

By the end of the hundred years war, volley fire didn't stop heavy cavalry
and point blank fire was ineffective against plate even without the bloody
shield. The archers got ridden under and the men fought with pole arms using
both hands.

Next point. Studies seem to suggest that Roman legioners, ancient Greeks
and various others could have withstood point blank fire and a tortoise
formation could care less about the low powered volleys. I saw film of an
arrow fired from a very powerful compound bow sticking about six inches
through a heavy wicker and shrunk leather shield supposed to be a
reproduction of bronze age Greek shield. The guy holding such a shield would
have barely noticed unless he brushed against it and the shield was not
really damaged.

The Persians had good compound bows. The Spartans did fight in the shade and
don't seem to have taken much harm from the arrow rain.

You have fun now.

A bow can be a very effective weapon but like all weapons it has its limits.
Infantry with a nice big tough shield is one major limit. Plate armor is
another but costs a lot more.





> --
> mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
> ============================
> My Website: http://electronictiger.com
> ===================================
> No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred
> leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"Offbreed" <offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q8GdnVnmGJkm2e7bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> mike weber wrote:
>
>> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
>> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
>> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
>> well-bracketed mortar fire.
>>
> Wouldn't that be one reason for ranks? The front rank blocks direct fire,
> and the back ranks raise their shields for plunging fire.

Great idea. The Ancient Romans called such a formation a tortoise. They used
plywood shields that weighted if I recall right about 20 pounds and were
made of a form of plywood covered with an outer layer of leather.


>
> Agreed on how many people would have metal protecting them. That stuff was
> expensive.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:hgb873hlfts0topv2onhrkge0fg5insthh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:01:22 -0700, Offbreed
> <offbreed_106.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>mike weber wrote:
>>
>>> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
>>> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
>>> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
>>> well-bracketed mortar fire.
>>>
>>Wouldn't that be one reason for ranks? The front rank blocks direct
>>fire, and the back ranks raise their shields for plunging fire.
>>
>>Agreed on how many people would have metal protecting them. That stuff
>>was expensive.
>
> for most of history warfare has been gang fights writ large.
> disciplined formations were a rarity. during the height of the
> english bowmen the best disciplined troops in an army they faced would
> have been the knights and they were warriors not soldiers.

The guys that rode them under about 100 years later fought for cash and wore
plate. The French might have won that one but the for cash guys went off and
looted the English supply train leaving it to the French and English to
fight it out using pole arms. The French got shoved back and a lot drowned
in a moat around a city the the French tried to take refugee in. It is
really hard to swim in plate.

However this doesn't change another basic point. Good heavy infantry shields
from various times and places have demonstrated a good ability to stop
arrows fired from much stronger bows than the wimpy hunting bows you were
talking about.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8cf673lpilf1jj0tinbu69nsq9umk7dnvo@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:53:17 -0500, "deowll" <deowll RemoveThis @bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>My data is that these long bows weren't war bows. A warbow starts with a
>>>>draw weight of at least 120 pounds and goes up to the limit of human
>>>>ability. There is little point in having a force equiped with weapons
>>>>(bows)
>>>>the other side's armor is largely going to negate. The same guy had a
>>>>show
>>>>testing an ancient greek shield against a very good bow and the shield
>>>>was
>>>>very effective. Only limited penitration, a few inches. They could have
>>>>withstood standing in the shade of clouds of arrows as the Greeks seem
>>>>to
>>>>have done on occasion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> was talking about longbows on another board lately and it seems that
>>> the standard issue english longbows were more like 90-100 lb based on
>>> some bows they recovered from the mary rose. that should be well
>>> within what a man can achieve in conditioning in 6-12 months say.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
>>
>>If you have sources about this topic that I or these people don't know
>>about
>>please feel free to share. Until you do I'm forced to conclude that a bow
>>like that is about good enough to get you seriously killed. Tests on
>>reproduction armor and shields dating back as far as the bronze age show
>>that the bows you are talking about failed to get the job done. This
>>strongly implies that a very seriously pissed off man with a stabbing
>>spear
>>is going to get much closer to you than you ever wanted unless you can run
>>real fast.
>>
>>
>>
>
> the article i read didn't speak to the mary rose bows being weakened
> by soaking in seawater.

Did you know that the ship belonged to Henry the VIII and that it sank or
not? This was before Jamestown! What did you think would happen to wood that
had spent that much time in the water?

>
> i'm not so sure i'd write off 90lb bows as battlefield weapons.
> typically a lot of the guys you'd shoot at were neither well armoured
> nor shielded.

If you round up a bunch of peasants and don't bother to equip them you have
a point. People who are not properly trained or equiped are easily killed.

If you are talking about a Saxon in a shield wall. They weren't that
impressed though Harold was taken out by an arrow very late in the day at
Hastings.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

In article <tKmgi.51$3p.20@bigfe9.bellsouth.net>,
"deowll" <deowll RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Offbreed" <offbreed_106 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Q8GdnVnmGJkm2e7bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> > mike weber wrote:
> >
> >> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
> >> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
> >> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
> >> well-bracketed mortar fire.
> >>
> > Wouldn't that be one reason for ranks? The front rank blocks direct fire,
> > and the back ranks raise their shields for plunging fire.
>
> Great idea. The Ancient Romans called such a formation a tortoise. They used
> plywood shields that weighted if I recall right about 20 pounds and were
> made of a form of plywood covered with an outer layer of leather.

But those shields and formation are only going to be developed after the
opposition has started making heavy use of arrows. If no one has been
shooting arrows at them, they aren't going to have developed any
anti-arrow tactics.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:36:11 -0500, "deowll" <deowll DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>
>And Mike. Guess what. When tested good mail certainly will stop an arrow
>fired from a wimpy bow. Good mail will do a decent job of stopping arrows
>fired from anything less than a God awful strong bow.

What type of arrow? Pile heads were designed specifically to slide
right between the links of mail.
>
>The French knights had good armor. The English archers had bows that most
>likely all had a pull of well over 120 pounds. Based on the dimensions of
>the bows from the Mary Rose suggests over 150. This dude was claiming a high
>was maybe 100 tops. This does not match history nor archeology nor does it
>match what happens in tests.

That's for sure. There's no way that the bows the English are
supposed to have used were 100 pounds or less - you can't even "pull"
them, i recall reading, you have to "press" them.

--
mike weber (fairportfan@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:23:51 -0400, Don Sample <dsample DeleteThis @synapse.net>
wrote:


>>
>> Great idea. The Ancient Romans called such a formation a tortoise. They used
>> plywood shields that weighted if I recall right about 20 pounds and were
>> made of a form of plywood covered with an outer layer of leather.
>
>But those shields and formation are only going to be developed after the
>opposition has started making heavy use of arrows. If no one has been
>shooting arrows at them, they aren't going to have developed any
>anti-arrow tactics.

the ancients generally speaking didn't have powerful bows but they
were certainly fond of slingers who were pretty dangerous lads to face
in their own right.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:45:51 -0500, "deowll" <deowll.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>However this doesn't change another basic point. Good heavy infantry shields
>from various times and places have demonstrated a good ability to stop
>arrows fired from much stronger bows than the wimpy hunting bows you were
>talking about.
>
>
an 80-100 lb bow shouldn't have the word wimpy attached to it.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

>From a Mardukan perspective, why couldn't the Markdukans have created
the bow? Amazonian tribes regularly use the bow, and they certainly
live in 'jungle terrain'. While a tribal hunting bow certainly isn't a
weapon of war, it does at least teach the basic techniques required to
make a solid bow, and lays the foundation for truly powerful weapons.
With all the nasty creatures running around it seems like at least one
of them would provide the needed material for a good, solid hornbow.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"Don Sample" <dsample.TakeThisOut@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-01B2A0.02235127062007@news.giganews.com...
> In article <tKmgi.51$3p.20@bigfe9.bellsouth.net>,
> "deowll" <deowll.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> "Offbreed" <offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Q8GdnVnmGJkm2e7bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@scnresearch.com...
>> > mike weber wrote:
>> >
>> >> plate. And that a shield in battle where you have to bear in mind
>> >> that unfriendly people may be about to poke at you with pointy things
>> >> is about as effective against plunging archery as a trench is against
>> >> well-bracketed mortar fire.
>> >>
>> > Wouldn't that be one reason for ranks? The front rank blocks direct
>> > fire,
>> > and the back ranks raise their shields for plunging fire.
>>
>> Great idea. The Ancient Romans called such a formation a tortoise. They
>> used
>> plywood shields that weighted if I recall right about 20 pounds and were
>> made of a form of plywood covered with an outer layer of leather.
>
> But those shields and formation are only going to be developed after the
> opposition has started making heavy use of arrows. If no one has been
> shooting arrows at them, they aren't going to have developed any
> anti-arrow tactics.

Which seems to have been some time in the neolithic in many locations.

Of course some people took longer.

>
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series 

"Brian McDonald" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dhg683prfbrkfb73aklp32ut5desn9d8p6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:45:51 -0500, "deowll" <deowll RemoveThis @bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>However this doesn't change another basic point. Good heavy infantry
>>shields
>>from various times and places have demonstrated a good ability to stop
>>arrows fired from much stronger bows than the wimpy hunting bows you were
>>talking about.
>>
>>
> an 80-100 lb bow shouldn't have the word wimpy attached to it.

Compared to the force you or a sturdy ten year old can put behind a dagger,
it is wimpy. At more than a few feet you aren't going to get more than a
fraction of that either. I watched film of a trained marshal artist hit a
target with over 2000 ft pounds using a bow stave. I've seen film of an
untrained middle aged runt sized man getting about 1300 pounds out of a
staff. If you are a man in any kind of condition and know how to use a
dagger, knife, spear or whatever it is no problem to get a couple of hundred
foot pounds into any sort of thrust with almost any weapon.

With the power of their legs and some momentum I'd guess most men could get
a thousand pounds or more behind a spear thrust.
 >> Stay informed about: Empire of man series