Ask me about archery, longbows especially.

[Mindfire]

Which would have been more accurate or practical, an early gun or a crossbow from the same period?

I ask this because one of my nations may invent guns and I'm wondering if that would just make more "traditional" weapons instantly obsolete or if the technology would need to evolve some first.

 

[Stuart John Evison]

I tried to answer the question about early guns before but for some reason it did not get here so:
As I understand it the early guns were used alongside crossbows and longbows for many years from the 16th to the 17th century. It was not until the flintlock replaced the matchlock at the end of the 17th that guns put paid to the old technology.
The introduction of rifling, where the inside of the barrel was given a spiral groove was another leap forward as we redcoats found to our cost when trying to stop the American colonies gaining independence. Incidentally Happy Independence Day U.S.A.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I tried to answer the question about early guns before but for some reason it did not get here so:
As I understand it the early guns were used alongside crossbows and longbows for many years from the 16th to the 17th century. It was not until the flintlock replaced the matchlock at the end of the 17th that guns put paid to the old technology.
The introduction of rifling, where the inside of the barrel was given a spiral groove was another leap forward as we redcoats found to our cost when trying to stop the American colonies gaining independence. Incidentally Happy Independence Day U.S.A.

This is what I understand as well.

Matchlocks & wheel-locks were prone to misfire & did not function well in moist conditions. With the invention of the flintlock, these problems were minimized, or at least they were more easily guarded against.

Swords, armor, bows, crossbows, mounted knights, and firearms (even crude cannon) all existed together for a substantial amount of time. As firearms improved, they made the others obsolete.

In a fantasy world though, as long as you can explain their coexistence logically then I wouldn't be too concerned. I understand the desire to have a similar chronology to our own though.

 

[Mindfire]

The reason for my question is this:

[EXPOSITION]During the course of my world's history, the throne of Elyssia is usurped by a new regime run by Hadrian Count Cicero and his wife Clementia, who then procede to invest heavily in new weapons technologies, resulting in the invention of the first firearms. After Hadrian's death, Clementia reverses his policy on closely guarding the secrets of dark magic, and begins teaching a hand-picked group of initiates in its use, resulting in a group of highly skilled assassins known as the Clementine Acolytes (name still in flux). Eventually this regime is overthrown by Titus Aquilus, true heir to the Elyssian throne.[/EXPOSITION]

So after Titus comes into power, I'm planning to have him make a clean break from the previous regime by getting rid of the new firearms, banning dark magic, and instead going back to using traditional weapons and only exploring peaceful uses for new technology. But I'm also thinking that he might still be pursuing more advanced firearms in secret. (He can't train new initiates in Dark Magic because all its users will likely be dead at the war's end, unless I have one of the Acolytes survive, but I doubt my heroes would let that happen.)

Given these circumstances, would it be believable that Titus would, at least publicly, discontinue the use of firearms as a show of good faith and arm his forces with spears, swords, crossbows, etc. while engineering better weapons in secret, if at all?

 

[Caged Maiden]

It might help if you detailed the sort of equivalent time period in Earth's history. That might give you some ideas of relevant technologies. Magic of course might be an equalizer, but if one side has canons and the other only has spears, that wouldn't be very likely.

 

[ascanius]

Sorry if some of this has already been answered.

Ok my first question concerns the difference between a reflex, and a recurve bow. From what I have been able to gather a reflex bow forms a c away from the shooter when unstrung, while a recurve forms a [ away from the shooter. Now my questions. First what is the difference in performance between these two types. From what I have read the reflex offers much more power due to the way energy is stored throughout the bow. While the recurve offers a greater initial power due to how the ends store the majority of the power so it gets a sudden push off the bat. Is that right? any other differences that I should note.

Also would you happen to know the process in making such bows, especially with the use of horn bows. I know different strips of wood are glued together with the horn used on the outside but I have been unable to find the process, especially if they cut the wood in that shape or shape it through some other means.

Third. The wood used, what type of wood is used in making bows, hard, soft, in between. Are there any properties that are better suited to different types.

Fourth. What does the horn actually do for the bow? How much is needed, what type?

Fifth. What about the string? I know it is sinew but how do you get a length of sinew for a bow string. I've butchered animals before and I have never seen a nice string already made.

Sixth. Are special considerations made for arrows of different types of bows? Like does a long bow use a larger arrow than a recurve or vice versa.

Seven. What about the optimal uses for each type of bow.

 

[Stuart John Evison]

Maybe the introduction of a character who is an alchemist, after all the knowledge of making explosive powders came about long before the introduction of cannons from which guns themselves were developed.
Gunpowder: Saltpetre 75%, charcoal 15% and sulphur 10% ground and pulverised. This produces grain powder and up until 1500 all gunpowder was like that. At this time it was discovered that to moisten it and work it into a dough, dry and reground it improved its explosive properties remarkably, putting it simply it made the ingredients combine more completely. This new meal powder was what really made small bore weapons efficient enough to replace bows and cross bows.

 

[Stuart John Evison]

You need the help of a real expert, a fletcher and bowmaker . Try Fairbow
James Farrar; [email protected]

 

[Stuart John Evison]

This was a great B.B.C. series
Battlefield Britain-Battle For Wales-Youtube

 

[SeverinR]

For the early firearms versus bows:
The bow could fire alot faster then a firearm, I believe the bow was alot more accurate and more reliable, plus it was the trusted favorite.
As firearms improved, the bow's advantage declined, the popularity of the firearm gained.

The trusted favorite: Generations passed on to generations how to make and use bows and arrows. Constructing bow and arrows, and the use of them were a work of art. Fletcher, bowsmith, and archers were part of an art form.
Firearms had to build up this following. How many people are going to trust holding a moderate explosion near their body, even if they see someone else stupid enough to do it and survive?
Also the chance of accident or misfire, would be a big set back to someone trusting their life in a chunk of dull metal. Misfire means the shooter was in danger of death while trying to clear the gun, while the accident meant the gun exploded, ruptured or caused injury to the shooter, two of three meant the shooter was without a weapon(it was destroyed), the last meant the shooter might be called lefty or the late Mr____.
What does the average archer shoot in a minute versus the faster firearm shooter in the beginning? 6 to 1, 8-1?
Early in conflicts, did the shooters even try to reload during or after a charge?

 

[Caged Maiden]

Third. The wood used, what type of wood is used in making bows, hard, soft, in between. Are there any properties that are better suited to different types.

Yew, hickory, You can pretty much use a wide variety, but those are popular. Poundage makes a difference, but also how much you are using it. Some woods hold up better to more use.

Fourth. What does the horn actually do for the bow? How much is needed, what type?

The horn is for the ends, it is what the string loops over I have never seen horn used for the bow itself.
Incidentally, you can also use horn pieces for your nocks.

Fifth. What about the string? I know it is sinew but how do you get a length of sinew for a bow string. I've butchered animals before and I have never seen a nice string already made.

I have already said that strings are linen. You can use any fiber that is strong enough, but I have never seen a sinew string. If you are talking about English long bows, the string is most likely linen.

Sixth. Are special considerations made for arrows of different types of bows? Like does a long bow use a larger arrow than a recurve or vice versa.

Yes. My arrows are approved up to a 45 pound bow. After that, the shafts would have to be thicker to deal with the extra force of the string in the self nock. My friend made an English war arrow, the king you use with a 150 pound bow, and it's freaking massive. There is no reason you would use different arrows for a long bow or recurve, since your draw length is the same for them both. Arrow lengths depend on the archer not the bow. I'm small, so I cut 2"-3" off my shafts. Someone really tall might have to order longer shafts because they wouldn't be able to use a shorter arrow at full draw. When this happens, and your short arrow slips off the shelf or your hand, you end up with an arrow through your hand.

Seven. What about the optimal uses for each type of bow.

Well there are benefits to having a shorter bow if you are on horseback...

 

[Caged Maiden]

Here's my new quiver.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Caged Maiden]

And the arrows I just did.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Primitive bowstrings were made from the sinew of many types of animals (deer, elk, buffalo, etc.).

The method for making a bowstring from sinew is similar to the way you make a rope from plant fiber. It's basically a hook & twist knot that ties pieces of sinew together to make a long bowstring.

 

[Caged Maiden]

That may be true with native American bows.. but if we are talking European longbows, hemp cord and linen would have been most used. Sinew rots quickly in moisture and would have been less desirable. Linen is stronger than hemp, so for the bigger war bows, I'm sure it was preferred.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

That may be true with native American bows.. but if we are talking European longbows, hemp cord and linen would have been most used. Sinew rots quickly in moisture and would have been less desirable. Linen is stronger than hemp, so for the bigger war bows, I'm sure it was preferred.

Yes, I'm talking about primitive bows much earlier than the longbow or recurve designs.

 

[Caged Maiden]

A primitive bow is another thing altogether. I just wanted to point out to Ascanius, who posted the strings were obviously made from sinew, that that is not the case with the types of bows mentioned in the post. It would be an inappropriate choice depending on the weight of the bow and style, and for some reason, many people seem to assume all bows are strung with sinew, which they are not. While sinew would function for one category of bow,there are plant materials which were far more common.

 

[Ravana]

Ok my first question concerns the difference between a reflex, and a recurve bow. From what I have been able to gather a reflex bow forms a c away from the shooter when unstrung, while a recurve forms a [ away from the shooter.

Essentially you have it. A reflex bow curves completely away from the user; a recurve curves away at the tips. I can't speak directly to comparative performance, having only fired recurve and straight bows, but I would have to guess that reflex bows would at a minimum wear out more rapidly, as they are being put under greater stresses (that is, they're bent farther from their "natural" shape) simply by being strung. One would also expect them to be harder to string—which is my understanding. (One article mentions their propensity for "reversing themselves suddenly." Ouch.)

One might be tempted to evaluate performance based on the cultures which used each type. Most of Europe and Asia used recurves, for at least four thousand years, so it isn't a question of technological availability. The two major exceptions were the English—the longbow is a straight self bow, not a recurve or reflex; and the Mongols and their near kin (the Turks in particular)—who used reflex bows. That having been said… the longbow was also much longer than most bows it went up against (hence the name); the Mongol horse bow was shorter than most bows it went up against, due to the way it was intended to be used. So it becomes more a question of different solutions to achieving a goal than it does to inherent superiority of one construction over another. Certainly, a six-foot-tall reflex bow constructed in the Mongol fashion could be expected to have a pull weight greater than that of the longbow… so great no one could draw it, I would imagine.

Note also that all or nearly all reflex and recurve bows are composite bows, whereas the longbow is made from a single piece of wood. Which is why I specified "constructed in the Mongol fashion." A reflex bow made to less exacting demands wouldn't be as powerful; if you made a reflex bow from a single piece of wood you'd be fortunate if it didn't snap the first time you tried to string it.

Also would you happen to know the process in making such bows, especially with the use of horn bows. I know different strips of wood are glued together with the horn used on the outside…

Fourth. What does the horn actually do for the bow? How much is needed, what type?

Yes. Horn was not used exclusively to reinforce the tips: in fact, as far as I know, doing so was a fairly late development, and was done for the same reasons it was done to other parts of the bow. Composite bows are made from a variety of materials, with wood being the core; horn would be glued to some of the surfaces facing the archer, as it has greater resistance to compression than wood; sinew would be glued to some of the opposite surfaces, as it can be stretched farther than wood, thereby allowing extra layers for which snapping under stress is not a worry. The wood itself might be made of multiple layers laminated together as well. In all cases, the glue would have been made from animal hide or fish swim bladders (I did not know the latter until just now). The bow's construction might be further reinforced by having sinew wrapped around it—this adds nothing to the force of the bow itself, only its resistance to coming apart.

The amount is not great: the horn layers are fairly thin. From what I'm reading, water buffalo is a good choice, most antelope, goat and sheep horn is acceptable (which makes sense, the Mongols not being great herders of water buffalo); most other cattle are not good sources, as the horn doesn't hold together as well over the long term. The horn is not carved, in case you were wondering: it was separated in layers and flattened.

Note that not all composite bows employed horn and/or sinew: some were made solely of laminated wood.

Third. The wood used, what type of wood is used in making bows, hard, soft, in between. Are there any properties that are better suited to different types.

One that isn't likely to break when you bend it.

Seriously: a great many woods have been used historically, and the choice probably had a lot more to do with what was available than what was "better." Here, however, is where the English longbow derived its "technological" advantage: most were made of yew, and of a very specific part of the yew—the interface between outer sapwood and inner heartwood. The heartwood has a high resistance to compression, and goes on the inside of the bow, while the sapwood has a high tensile strength, and goes on the outside. Thus, by cutting the bow from the correct part of the tree, you obtain what is effectively a composite bow… but from a single piece of wood.

Elm, ash, hazel, hickory, and numerous other woods have seen use, as has bamboo; some pretty much require composite construction in order to make good bows, others can make reasonable, though not superior, bows by themselves. Mongol bows have a core of birch; Turkish, commonly of maple. I doubt pine would be very good; I also haven't seen willow mentioned—I would have thought the wood in the trunk at least would be good, but as with pine it might be a bit too flexible, or else store compressive strength poorly (or both).

Fifth. What about the string? I know it is sinew but how do you get a length of sinew for a bow string. I've butchered animals before and I have never seen a nice string already made.

You need to separate the strands and twist them, i.e. treat them like any other fiber. And, yes, it was a fairly common material in various places and times, if not one noted for resistance to water. Then again, flax and hemp strings aren't invulnerable to water, just less affected by it. Hemp was (and still is) used with the Japanese yumi. Silk, which I would imagine makes great string, saw employment in the east. Other materials include intestines, hide and, at least purportedly, hair. The Mongols used animal hide—preferring horse hide. (I would have thought sinew easier than slicing hide thin enough and stretching it. I guess, based on building bows the way they did, "easy" wasn't a major issue with them.)

Sixth. Are special considerations made for arrows of different types of bows? Like does a long bow use a larger arrow than a recurve or vice versa.

The arrow length ought to correspond to the draw length. As mentioned, however, longbows were not necessarily drawn back as far as their size might suggest—the best evidence for this being from the Mary Rose: the arrows averaged 30 inches long, which is actually toward the short end of modern hobby archery arrows, and no longer than the average Mongol arrow. Japanese arrows ranged from 34 to 44 inches, depending on how tall the user was. Depending on available materials, arrows could be as long as five feet—but usually these were fired by crummy bows that needed the draw length to get enough force in the first place.

While arrows for heavier draw weights might be thicker, this can be as much a result of opportunity as need: a heavier draw allows you to throw a heavier projectile the same distance as a lighter draw and shaft, thereby delivering greater force at the long end of the range. Also, heavier projectiles are less prone to drifting off course. Splitting might be a problem, but it can be a problem no matter how thick the arrow is, since the force of the string is going to push along the grain of the shaft no matter what. If the fletches are tied, the sinew or thread will prevent the shaft from splitting… at least long enough to get it off the string once.

Seven. What about the optimal uses for each type of bow.

To kill the other guy first.

Shorter bows are easier to use from horseback, though the Japanese addressed this problem by making their bows asymmetrical, with the portion above the grip much longer than that below it. (Whether this was the original reason for the design or not is debated: the result was the same.) More powerful bows give you greater range, penetration, or both. So a short powerful bow is more desirable when mounted; when standing, length is less of an issue. Lighter bows are easier to draw, and to hold steady while aiming, though in massed fire this is rarely a consideration. (The English, by the way, didn't "draw" their bows: they pushed. Which, I can tell you from experience, is a lot easier. Not sure how many others did this… but it wasn't many.)

Beyond that, more depends on tactics than on bow type. And on training: in the end, what made the English and the Mongols superior bowmen was that they were raised to it—all of them were, at least during the periods these weapons saw dominance on the field.

 

[KorbentMarksman]

When you draw a powerful bow you can hear the string tense and the material of the limbs strain as they bend. You can both see and feel the muscles in your forearms ripple under the weight of the pull. You have to be conscious of your breathing so that it won't throw off your shot. You have to focus towards where you think your target will appear (or stay hidden until the target looks another way then draw). If your target is an animal with honed olfactory senses you may be concerned about getting winded from your body's odor created during the chase.

In a period of hypersensitivity I would focus on sensory details like these. The tension could be built up quite nicely to be let go when the father knows the son is safe.

The release of tension in this case would be a physical manifestation of the tension felt by a father protecting & worrying over the safety of their child. Also a great way to end a scene perhaps.

Of course this works best if the POV character is the one shooting the bow.

That was incredibly helpful, thank you very much.

 

[wordwalker]

One thing about a back quiver, when making one, you need to make sure it either hangs at an angle which allows for a comfortable draw or cut it in a way so as to have one side mostly open. Personally I'm used to using a hip quiver, but again, design is really important when going for function. Back quivers are easier to travel with because they don't flop around when you are moving, but they can be trickier to draw an arrow from. If speed is important, having arrows in your belt or in a hip quiver might be faster.http://mythicscribes.com/forums/research/3859-arrow-making-tutorial.html

I had heard that back quivers were pure Hollywood, or at least not used by English yeomen, because archery moves derived from hunting and drawing arrows from the back would be such a wide motion it would attract an animal's eye.