> > Player's Book: Genertela Book gives the Rathori the Longbow
> > whereas the Pentans and CharUn only have a composite bow.
>I use bows for various kinds of target archery, and I want to testify
>thatwhile the longbow has a lot of good things to say about it, it is by
>no means the "better" bow.
And much of the criteria you listed had little do with either range or penetration, the topics at hand.
> >>The Turkish (and Mongol) composite bows were nearly as
> >>good, if not as good, as the longbow.
>The best of these were superior to the best longbows in terms of
>penetration and range.
But the CharUn are not uniformly wielding the best of these bows. I would expect the best bows to be in the hands of the strongest and wealthiest clans and even then limited to the chief or his henchmen.
> > But the CharUn are neither Turkish nor Mongols.
>Every Asian horse nomad invasion, e.g. the Huns, used bows not too
>different from these.
Which merely indicates that they would have had some type of composite bow (hunnish archaeological remains are rather sparse), not that their bows were the equivalent of turkish or mongolian composite bows in range and firepower.
The Athenians in their heyday had ready access to Scythian mounted archers whom they used to keep public order and could call upon similarly equipped Thracians. If their bows were comparable to the turkish or mongolian, then one would expect the Athenians to have made greater use of those troops in their wars and not javelin-throwing Peltasts.
>I fail to see why the Char Un should use vastly inferior composite bows
>compared to the real world.
Considering that they don't have stirrups and work with an army that uses phalanxes, I find it more appropriate to model CharUn military technology on the Scythians.
> > The relevance as to how [the difference between mounted archers
> > [and foot archers] affects who has the better bow is what?
>Try shooting a Parthian shot from the saddle with a longbow, and you'll
>change your mind about "better".
But the Rathori don't shoot from horseback, so what's the relevance?
>The horse archers will likely lose badly against well-positioned foot
>archers, but foot archers on the march are as likely little more than
>target praxis for horse archers.
And a Rathori in ambush or a Rathori sniping upon a lone outrider is what?
Powered by hypermail