Re: bows

From: Wulf Corbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:08:52 -0000

At last, a conversation! And on my favourite weapon type too...

> On the other hand, in many other cultures the bow had almost no
place
> in war. In part, no doubt, because people didn't like giving up
the
> protection of a shield, but also because the bows just didn't have
> the power to do much damage at a long enough range to be
effective.

There is another reason. A single bow is pretty ineffective in a pitched battle, except when used by a particularly skilled 'sniper'. You need massed artillery for effective battlefield archery, and for that, obviously, you need masses of archers. Orlanthi culture does not support masses of full-time warriors, no more archers than swordsmen. Medaeval Longbowmen, who trained full-time from childhood, relied as much on massed firepower as accuracy - the longbow was deadly not simply because of it's draw weight of 120 pounds plus, but because it fell upon the enemy from a great height. It takes a Longbow arrow more than 5 seconds to reach it's normal combat range of a couple of hundred yards, you simply CANNOT aim at individual targets if they are moving. That great height (and distance) was itself achieved by the poundage, but at full range it was gravity acting on the heavy arrows that provided the impact. If you don't have masses of archers pulling heavy bows, you don't get effective artillery fire, and Orlanthi hunters have no need of 120 pound bows, hunting arrows can be half that poundage, and so will have half the range and far less killing power. Orlanthi have snipers, not artillery.

> What I'm wondering is if that seems adequate to explain how little
> the bow is used by the heortlings? Or to better reflect that most
of
> their bows are built for hunting, not war, should they also be
> described as "light" bows, dropping their edge down to 2?

Depends what they hunt. To use a light or Self bow (generally described as a bow formed from a single piece of wood, with no recurve and no back, with about 30-40 pounds pull) on a deer, for instance, is exceptionally ineffective & cruel. It would need as much luck as skill to make a clean kill. You need a recurve, backed, or composite (or some combination thereof) to kill large game.

> So, the short question is: typcial heortling bow, edge 2 or 3?

Self Bow: Rank 2
Bow/Hunting Bow: Rank 3
Long Bow/Composite Bow: Rank 4
Composite Long Bow: Rank 4 or even 5!  

> Follow on questions of course are:
> - if edge 2, how common are edge 3 bows?

In my opinion, they are the standard hunting bow for larger game. These would be about 40-60 pounds pull. Remember that arrows penetrate the target far more easily than swords (barring fencing rapiers), being smaller in diameter, so they do more vital damage for the same power.

> - would many heortlings use bows traded/taken from praxians or
other
> cultures with stronger bows? Or would the technique to use them
> effectively be too different to easily adopt them?

Non-wooden bows were historically only developed by cultures who had no efficient wood to use (yew being the choice of Western Europe, of course). Composite bows, made of bone, horn, etc., glued together with boiled sinew, are more powerful, but far more complex & 'costly' (in terms of effort & required knowledge). Therefore, trading might be common, but adopting another culture's bowyer technique would be rare. Where there's wood, it's easy to shape. Where there isn't, you have no choice... You can greatly improve the simple 'self' bow by recurving, glueing on a back of stiffer wood, bone or horn, and other techniques.

I could go on for hours...

Wulf

Powered by hypermail