Re: Glorantha Digest V4 #178

From: Ed Tonry <etonry_at_niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 23:10:34 -0500


> Just out of curiousity, Joerg, what's your take on the longbow vs. nomad
> bow business? Seems to be a matter of favoritism, with the medieval
> English lovers taking the longbow, the Mongolophiles taking the nomad
> bow... Too bad the Mongols didn't make it to the channel to suit my
> comparative whims. <g>
>
> James Frusetta
 

Don't forget, the bow is just a tool. You also have to consider the tactics used with each bow. The English took up a defensive position and let their foes come at them, raining arrows down on the advancing army and hoping the enemy would break before hitting their line. Or that they could at least soften the enemy up enough for their own knights to take care of them in melee.

The Mongols put themselves at a comfortable bowshot from the enemy, and stayed there. If the enemy advanced, the Mongols fell back; if their foes retreated, the Mongols advanced. Being mounted archers, this was easy.

So farmers armed with Mongol bows, but without Mongol ponies, are a dangerous force - until you close with them. They don't have the full Mongol tactics, only the weapon part.

Unprotected archers are useful only until they see themselves in danger. Then they start thinking how much safer it is behind the lines, maybe _way_ behind. Both the English and the Mongols came up with tactics which kept their archers better protected for a longer time. And this better protection kept them in the battle and effective for a longer time.

Ed Tonry


Powered by hypermail