Assuming no healing magic, a person hit in the chest with a composite bow (or longbow) arrow will either be (a) killed instantly, (b) start bleeding and eventually die, (c) start bleeding, but the bleeding stops before he dies, but he's still incapacitated, or (d) still have positive chest hit points.
Here are the results:
CHEST ARMOR %dead %incapacitated %still able to fight none 80 19 1 1 pt 74 22 4 2 pts 65 26 9 3 pts 57 26 17 4 pts 50 26 24 5 pts 45 26 29 6 pts 37 25 38 7 pts 30 23 47 8 pts 27 16 57 EURMALI AND THE LAW A Eurmal riddler has the greatest possible respect for, andrecognition of law. He has no reason for existence if there is no law for him to break. When he is threatened by the forces of order, the first thing he thinks of is to invoke law to save him. "You cannot slay me, thane of Orlanth, I have eaten your salt at your table!"
"Yes," says the thane. "But you disguised yourself as my wife. I didn't recognize you or welcome you. So you die."
"But wait!" says the outlaw. "I never _said_ I was your wife. I just walked into the hall wearing funny clothes and you greeted me in a friendly way."
And so forth, arguing technicalities in hopes that the Orlanthi will get bogged down in details and forget the original purpose of the assault.
Kevin Rose
>Hungary, Russia and China are not composed completly of dry areas,
>and the Mongols did launch several invasions of Japan. So it seems
>pretty fair to assume that being in a humid area does not cause
>automatic problems with Comp. bows. The Turks also used Comp bows,
>and they were right on the Med and the Black Sea, as well as Bosnia
>and other such counties.
I dunno about Hungary, but northern China is reasonably dry, and the Med is pretty dry, at least in summer. Presumably it would take pretty high humidity (such as England, India, Maryland) for an extended period of time to screw up the bows.
Another possibility (experts please respond?) -- is it that composite bows can't be _made_ in a humid climate? Perhaps they can be used almost anywhere, but 'tis the manufacture that's restricted.
>On long bows in Glorantha, I thought that only the dragonnewts used
>longbows, per WF14?
This is true in Orlanthi areas, but not necessarily worldwide. Also the dragonewt bows are technically not longbows, seeing as they're made of bone, not wood.
> I don't think the Europeans had a single solitary advantage over
>the Mongols except for numbers
Steve Lieb:
>I can think of a few: Armour.
As previously stated, the Mongols had chainmail, which is all that their European foes of the time had access to. And the notable failure of plate to give Europeans a decisive advantage over the chain-armored Saracens leads me to suspect it wasn't that big a deal even if they'd _had_ it vs. the Mongols.
>The crossbow, allowing any dork peasant to be able to kill at 150
>paces (ok, well, maybe 50 paces) without the lifelong training of a
>mongol.
Not so. Name a battle (just one) in which untrained peasants armed with crossbows were able to beat _anybody_. Untrained peasants weren't _given_ expensive crossbows. Plus the Mongols could have had crossbows if they'd wanted them -- the Chinese made fine crossbows of every type, including repeating. Crossbows, being nigh-unusable on horseback, were worthless to them.
>Sturdier mounts by far, forcing the mongols (by and large -
>recognition is made of the huge generalization here..) to evade
>melee unless overwhelmingly outnumbering their foe (the Hungarians
>come to mind here).
Huh? The Mongols _won_ every battle they fought against the Europeans, and only rarely managed to outnumber them. The last battle vs. the Mongols is sometimes counted as a European victory because the Mongols returned to Asia afterwards, but that had to do with Mongol internal politics. Careful examination of the battle reveals that the Europeans were whipped, as always, and that they were taken aback when the Mongols ceased their campaign.
>Interior lines of communication.
Huh? How did Europe have interior lines of communication vs. Subotain? They had to gather their forces from Hungary, Prussia, Poland, Bohemia, etc. while the Mongols split their forces at will, recombining for the major battles.
>Hmmm. I guess the proof is in the pudding - I don't see any Mongol
>states around in 1995, do you?
Er. How about Mongolia? And China (ruled by the Mongols so long that they were finally assimilated)? And the Mongol influence over central and southern Russia (which lasted for many centuries). And Afghanistan (Tamerland saw himself as heir to the Mongols, and I'm not so sure he was wrong)?
Powered by hypermail