>> AFAIK, Martin Laurie or someone doubtless knows more, the >> long bow is a self-bow. It is distinguished from other >> self bows by having a 100-120 lbs draw instead of a 40-50 lbs >> draw, giving it the power to punch holes through chainmail.
Nick Hughes:
> The classic medieval English longbow was usually a
> self-composite bow, i.e. a single piece of wood selected
> to act as a composite bow because the back and face were
> from different parts of the trunk.
Basically correct, but then true for most decent self bows as well. I'd place any piece of wood with some sinew glued on its back in the group of self bows rather than composite bows, in rules or range terms.
> I believe the draw-weights may in fact not have been quite
> so high as is often suggested, or at least not commonly so
> throughout the period. Most measurements/estimates of
> surviving bows seem to put them more in the 80-100lb draw
> range which is still pretty damn hard to draw but comparable
> to warbows from other parts of the world.
I know that a fairly untrained archer like myself can manage 36 shots at military range using a 70 lbs draw weight longbow with a decent target approximation and some sweat.
The most fun (?) in clout archery is dealing with the weather influences. I've shot against gale-strength sleet pouring down on us, which diminished the effective range a bit and hampered accuracy slightly. As long as the bow or parts of it don't dissolve from the wetness, Orlanthi-type weather is only slightly annoying. I suppose that the basic Jorganos feat is "guide arrow through storm" or similar. "Call arrow wind" might be an alternative, or a basic "attune arrow to winds".
>>The draw restricts usage of the bow to >> those who have spent a years training with it.
> The training was the key, the weapon itself was decent
> but not really that exceptional. It was the combination
> of extremely well trained archers, relatively cheap
> mass-produced bows and unusual (effectively
> heavy infantry archer) tactics that were so decisive. IMO.
I'd agree. The longbow was about equivalent to the crossbow in it effect on armoured or unarmoured targets, and only the firing rate for experienced archers really made a difference. As long as the archers did not have to face a charge, this was of little relevance, and with a cover of pikesmen or other heavy infantry, either missile units could hurt the back lines of the foe.
> So you could happily have some Sartarites or Exiles
> wandering round with longbows without upsetting the
> balance of military power in the pass.
Why should this upset the balance of military power when we have flyers raining down javelins from greater heights with a lot more devastating effects? If a Vanganthi does a distant dive from say 400 feet to 200 feet and then looses a javelin or three, the penetration will equal that of a ballista, and apart from aerial counteractions or Kadone magic there is little that can be done to avoid this tactic.
> Add in the other factors and then they would become a pretty
> damn dominant unit.
I doubt it. Archers are useful when the enemy advances through the firing range, best in close-order ranks. Few Heortling battles would work like this. The Lunars have ample experience fighting foot archers (starting with the Dara Happan rebellion of the First Wane) and know an entire set of counter-tactics.
Ian Cooper:
> I suggested that the Company of The Bow, a mercenary
> unit of Exile archers, have Jorganos the Archer as
> their hero. I didn't provide much more information on
> them or him - space was at a premium.
As a regimental hero, Jorganos might grant a few coordinative feats, like "concentrate fire", "covering fire", or "fire volley".
Nick Hughes
> On the third hand (Grotaron!) those blustery winds so beloved
> of Orlanthi magicians are a complete and total pain for any
> sort of half-decent archery. A nice ordererly steady wind
> at the back might be useful but IMG that's not the sort of
> wind your average Orlanthi calls up. Rain is hardly helpful
> to archers either.
True, but then Orlanthi archers are familiar with these conditions (unlike Praxian or Dara Happan archers) and know how to handle this.
> Regardless of which I'm sure there are myths of Orlanth
> stealing the bow and therefore Orlanthi who use it,
> probably there are even whole clans who specialise in its
> use as their favourite weapon.
One clan of the Runegate triaty had Kuschile as their ancestor, for a start of suspects. Bush Children and certain Exile clans have been documented as archers since the first Dragon Pass game with named units. The Yelmalio clans of Sun Dome Valley too (even though the mercenary units lack the asterisk).
Greg:
>> I know that in my Glorantha the only native long bow >> users are the Rathori of Fronela. >> There is a tendency to gie any special and unique thing to >> those whom we know best and love, especially the Heoortlings. >> But I long ago learned that only he Fronelans have this >> particular weapon as their native weapon.
> It has always puzzled me that while the Heortlings have
> always been poratrayed in official sources as not having
> the long bow, they have been portrayed as having the
> composite bow, which from what I gather from past discussions
> is as good or better than the long bow. Or has
> this been Gregged?
Methinks that Greg wanted to avoid companies of "Welsh longbowmen" everywhere among the Orlanthi. To me, this reads like "of the Gloranthan humans, only the Rathori have the long bow with the mythical armor-penetration feats/talents associated with Crispin's Day".
Massed ranks of archers raining down death beyond boasting range doesn't rhyme well with Heortlings. The individual champion shooting down the enemy boaster's trews by cutting his belt does fit the general picture, and should exist.
Besides, the Heortlings have Hedkoranthi thunderstone slingers, which gives them the equivalent of light field artillery or grenadiers. With this resource, why waste valuable time on archery training?
Powered by hypermail