Composite Longbow while mounted? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Composite Longbow while mounted? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Neo-Sapian
07-27-05, 06:50 PM I read in another thread that you can use a composite longbow while mounted. I thought that was wrong so I looked it up and the PHB v3.5 says "You can use a composite longbow while mounted." At the same time the PHB v3.5 says "A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted." Does anyone else see the discrepancy here or am I missing something? Why would a composite longbow be less unwieldy than a longbow?
Wookie1120
07-27-05, 07:01 PM a composite longbow isn't typically as long as a regular longbow. with a regular longbow, it is quite literally it's length that gives it so much of it's power and range. when you turn it composite, you shorten it and rely more on the recurve for the power and range. Not as much length = not as unweildly.

(p.s. I applogize for numerous misspellings)
Neo-Sapian
07-27-05, 07:56 PM That helps. Although the picture of the composite longbow in the PHB is longer than the longbow. I guess the drawings aren't terribley accurate.
Brave_Sir_Robin
07-27-05, 08:02 PM In real life, the Hons and Mongols used a composite longbow while mounted, so it is possible
WaterRabbit
07-27-05, 08:22 PM Bows can be classified by their construction:

1) Simple bows or self-bows are made from a single material.

2) Backed bows have a layer of resilient material added to the back to strengthen the bow.

3) Laminated bows are made up from three or more layers of similar material.

4) Composite bows are made up of three or more layers of dissimilar materials such as wood, horn, and sinew.

The construction alone does not determine its suitability for any particular task. For example, a long bow with a grip positioned toward the bottom (asymmetric) could indeed be fired from horseback as in the Japanese shinge-to-yumi type.

A composite bow in 3e assumes a smaller length than a simple longbow. It has more power because of its construction.

A 19th century Turkish composite bow can loose an arrow out to 660 yards for a flight arrow or 440 yards for a war arrow. This bow is much shorter than an English longbow, for example. Until the use of modern materials, this bow was widely regarded as the most efficient design.

The English longbow is a simple bow. It is made typically of yew (though elm was sometimes used). Yew bows were cut so that the sapwood was at the flat back of the bow and the denser heart wood at the belly.

The shape of the bow is also a factor. The English longbow has a curved shape or D-shaped. A Turkish composite longbow would have a double-curved shape.

The energy in the bow comes from drawing back the limbs with the bowstring. When the string is release the energy of the limbs is rapidly transmitted to the arrow as the string is drawn forward. By curving the limbs the bow can be made shorter but still have a long draw and thus more energy can be transmitted to the arrow.
Wookie1120
07-27-05, 08:29 PM wow... I feel what I thought was a decent knowledge on bows blown to the wind like that much ash. I am awed by your knowledge WatterRabbit.
Brave_Sir_Robin
07-27-05, 08:35 PM pretty common knowledge actualy (for your basic History/Discrovery viewer i guess)
Wookie1120
07-27-05, 08:42 PM I don't get in much TV. My experience from bows just comes from shooting them. I know very little about the materials they've been made from historically.
WaterRabbit
07-27-05, 08:43 PM In real life, the Hons and Mongols used a composite longbow while mounted, so it is possible

Mongol bows were typically 150-160 cm long. Because of the power of the bows, they used a thumb ring to assist in the draw and protection of the fingers. A Mongol bow would generally have a range of about 350 yards compared to an English longbow at about 250 yards (though both bows could fire further with flight arrows under ideal conditions).

Now whether this is a longbow or a shortbow kind of depends on ones viewpoint. I don't know how meaningful the distinction would be in real life. For D&D purposes, I would not consider them to be of different lengths, but different strengths.
WaterRabbit
07-27-05, 08:49 PM wow... I feel what I thought was a decent knowledge on bows blown to the wind like that much ash. I am awed by your knowledge WatterRabbit.

I have participated in enough bow vs. crossbow vs. gun discussions that I have spent some time researching them. I have even used them on occasions. ;)

While the History channel has some interesting tidbits, I doubt I would remember all of the details from a single watching of any given show.

The one interesting tidbit I did pick up is from Battlefield Detectives. They tested English bodkin arrows against French plate from the Battle of Agincourt and discovered that they could not penetrate the plate. Made them rethink the whole battle.
Brave_Sir_Robin
07-27-05, 08:50 PM I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm
WaterRabbit
07-27-05, 09:47 PM I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm

I guess my point is that the Turkish bow I was refering to above, would be 40"-48" in overall length, but had a much greater range that the longer Mongol bow.
Southernskies
07-27-05, 10:07 PM While the History channel has some interesting tidbits, I doubt I would remember all of the details from a single watching of any given show.

The one interesting tidbit I did pick up is from Battlefield Detectives. They tested English bodkin arrows against French plate from the Battle of Agincourt and discovered that they could not penetrate the plate. Made them rethink the whole battle.

I saw that, and their own previous comments show they directed the evidence to meet their preconceptions.

The test was iron arrows vs steel plate.
Several minutes earlier, they had stated that suits of plate were in a family for generations and that the use of steel had only occured within a century of the battle.
Putting those two items together, I would guess that only 25-50% of the suits of plate at the battle would have been the more modern steel, the rest iron.
Most knightly families would not have been able to afford to upgrade to the even more expensive steel plate from their family heirloom suit of iron plate. Also, many of the knights at the battle would have been 2nd & 3rd sons, so they were more likely to be using older suits (as the 1st son would not need to personally be at the battle, he could just pay money to the king as his obligation); which drops the percentage even further.
Only royalty or those with extensive profits from their holdings would have the money (or had defeated a foe on the battlefield/tourney previously and claimed better armour).
roetroc
07-31-05, 07:57 AM Longbows were made not only of yew but also of elm, ash and wych elm according to Ascham.

Medieval longbows were also slightly reflexed. This was known as being whipped in the past.

The author of English Longbowman 1330-1515 has seen four medieval manuscripts showing longbows being used from horseback but unfortunately fails to let us poor folk with poor access to such things which ones they are and where they can be found.

The Vikings also had longbows. The Hedeby bow being a good example.

It seems that some historians (or editors for the programs they appear on) seem to forget that the breastplate and helmet were the thickest parts of a harness. The other sections were thinner and for a lot of battles sabatons weren't worn as many dismounted to fight on foot 'inthe English fashion".

They also forget that not everyone could afford the best and latest and that a lot of armies (especically English ones later inthe medieval period conisted of lightly armoured archers).

Also horses don't wear much and also get hit by arrows.
Vestigial_Thumb
07-31-05, 08:48 AM I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm
The vikings weren't a northern clan... :ahem: They were basically farmers who sometimes went on "trade missions." When many of them migrated to Iceland they took the basic knowledge of shipmaking with them but didn't really know how to make good weapons (let alone gather the materials needed since ore is rare in Iceland). Most of the good weapons in Icelandic history and sagas were gifts from Norwegians (heya Norge). Norse longbows weren't really that good (pretty much normal longbows). But some became mercenaries in Byzantion (called væringjar*) and might have acquired bows with better quality.

* The letter Æ is pronounced I as in idol. The word is pronounced vireengyar (g as in gate)
Watchman
07-31-05, 04:00 PM The Vikings were probably the ones who introduced the longbow to the British isles, anyway. The Celts (of whom the Welsh were a remnant) never were big fans of missile combat anyway, and there certainly does seem to have been a dearth of effective military archery for a while in the British Isles after the Romans left. Anyway, the Scandinavians were avid if little known users of the longbow through the Middle Ages - sparse population plus a lot of forest ergo lots of hunters by trade meant a whole lot of peasants could be recruited to serve as military archers with very little additional attention from the rulers.

That aside, "composite longbow" is propably a bit of an oxymoron of a concept - because you don't need to make a composite bow long, and there's thus no "short" or "long" composite bow to begin with. By what I've read of the things their draw weight can be increased to the utmost limits of human ability to actually use with no meaningful change in overall dimensions just by altering the weapons' internal details and relationships. Adding arm lenght to increase power is only necessary with non-composite bows. The historical composite bows, be they ancient Egyptian or Renaissance Ottoman or 1800s Central Asian, always seem to have been something like meter or thereabouts in lenght, easily employable from horseback or chariot, and more often than not carried in a case hung from the belt besides a sabre or other sword. Plus horse-archers at least would commonly have two or three spare, unstrung bows in their own casing strapped somewhere on their person or horse harness...
Vestigial_Thumb
07-31-05, 06:57 PM The Vikings were probably the ones who introduced the longbow to the British isles, anyway.
No, not really.
roetroc
08-01-05, 04:12 AM I think what Thumb is trying to say is that there are bows of the length of longbows and made of yew as well, that have been found in England before the arrival of the Vikings.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Neo-Sapian 07-27-05, 06:50 PM	I read in another thread that you can use a composite longbow while mounted. I thought that was wrong so I looked it up and the PHB v3.5 says "You can use a composite longbow while mounted." At the same time the PHB v3.5 says "A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted." Does anyone else see the discrepancy here or am I missing something? Why would a composite longbow be less unwieldy than a longbow?
Wookie1120 07-27-05, 07:01 PM	a composite longbow isn't typically as long as a regular longbow. with a regular longbow, it is quite literally it's length that gives it so much of it's power and range. when you turn it composite, you shorten it and rely more on the recurve for the power and range. Not as much length = not as unweildly. (p.s. I applogize for numerous misspellings)
Neo-Sapian 07-27-05, 07:56 PM	That helps. Although the picture of the composite longbow in the PHB is longer than the longbow. I guess the drawings aren't terribley accurate.
Brave_Sir_Robin 07-27-05, 08:02 PM	In real life, the Hons and Mongols used a composite longbow while mounted, so it is possible
WaterRabbit 07-27-05, 08:22 PM	Bows can be classified by their construction: 1) Simple bows or self-bows are made from a single material. 2) Backed bows have a layer of resilient material added to the back to strengthen the bow. 3) Laminated bows are made up from three or more layers of similar material. 4) Composite bows are made up of three or more layers of dissimilar materials such as wood, horn, and sinew. The construction alone does not determine its suitability for any particular task. For example, a long bow with a grip positioned toward the bottom (asymmetric) could indeed be fired from horseback as in the Japanese shinge-to-yumi type. A composite bow in 3e assumes a smaller length than a simple longbow. It has more power because of its construction. A 19th century Turkish composite bow can loose an arrow out to 660 yards for a flight arrow or 440 yards for a war arrow. This bow is much shorter than an English longbow, for example. Until the use of modern materials, this bow was widely regarded as the most efficient design. The English longbow is a simple bow. It is made typically of yew (though elm was sometimes used). Yew bows were cut so that the sapwood was at the flat back of the bow and the denser heart wood at the belly. The shape of the bow is also a factor. The English longbow has a curved shape or D-shaped. A Turkish composite longbow would have a double-curved shape. The energy in the bow comes from drawing back the limbs with the bowstring. When the string is release the energy of the limbs is rapidly transmitted to the arrow as the string is drawn forward. By curving the limbs the bow can be made shorter but still have a long draw and thus more energy can be transmitted to the arrow.
Wookie1120 07-27-05, 08:29 PM	wow... I feel what I thought was a decent knowledge on bows blown to the wind like that much ash. I am awed by your knowledge WatterRabbit.
Brave_Sir_Robin 07-27-05, 08:35 PM	pretty common knowledge actualy (for your basic History/Discrovery viewer i guess)
Wookie1120 07-27-05, 08:42 PM	I don't get in much TV. My experience from bows just comes from shooting them. I know very little about the materials they've been made from historically.
WaterRabbit 07-27-05, 08:43 PM	In real life, the Hons and Mongols used a composite longbow while mounted, so it is possible Mongol bows were typically 150-160 cm long. Because of the power of the bows, they used a thumb ring to assist in the draw and protection of the fingers. A Mongol bow would generally have a range of about 350 yards compared to an English longbow at about 250 yards (though both bows could fire further with flight arrows under ideal conditions). Now whether this is a longbow or a shortbow kind of depends on ones viewpoint. I don't know how meaningful the distinction would be in real life. For D&D purposes, I would not consider them to be of different lengths, but different strengths.
WaterRabbit 07-27-05, 08:49 PM	wow... I feel what I thought was a decent knowledge on bows blown to the wind like that much ash. I am awed by your knowledge WatterRabbit. I have participated in enough bow vs. crossbow vs. gun discussions that I have spent some time researching them. I have even used them on occasions. ;) While the History channel has some interesting tidbits, I doubt I would remember all of the details from a single watching of any given show. The one interesting tidbit I did pick up is from Battlefield Detectives. They tested English bodkin arrows against French plate from the Battle of Agincourt and discovered that they could not penetrate the plate. Made them rethink the whole battle.
Brave_Sir_Robin 07-27-05, 08:50 PM	I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm
WaterRabbit 07-27-05, 09:47 PM	I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm I guess my point is that the Turkish bow I was refering to above, would be 40"-48" in overall length, but had a much greater range that the longer Mongol bow.
Southernskies 07-27-05, 10:07 PM	While the History channel has some interesting tidbits, I doubt I would remember all of the details from a single watching of any given show. The one interesting tidbit I did pick up is from Battlefield Detectives. They tested English bodkin arrows against French plate from the Battle of Agincourt and discovered that they could not penetrate the plate. Made them rethink the whole battle. I saw that, and their own previous comments show they directed the evidence to meet their preconceptions. The test was iron arrows vs steel plate. Several minutes earlier, they had stated that suits of plate were in a family for generations and that the use of steel had only occured within a century of the battle. Putting those two items together, I would guess that only 25-50% of the suits of plate at the battle would have been the more modern steel, the rest iron. Most knightly families would not have been able to afford to upgrade to the even more expensive steel plate from their family heirloom suit of iron plate. Also, many of the knights at the battle would have been 2nd & 3rd sons, so they were more likely to be using older suits (as the 1st son would not need to personally be at the battle, he could just pay money to the king as his obligation); which drops the percentage even further. Only royalty or those with extensive profits from their holdings would have the money (or had defeated a foe on the battlefield/tourney previously and claimed better armour).
roetroc 07-31-05, 07:57 AM	Longbows were made not only of yew but also of elm, ash and wych elm according to Ascham. Medieval longbows were also slightly reflexed. This was known as being whipped in the past. The author of English Longbowman 1330-1515 has seen four medieval manuscripts showing longbows being used from horseback but unfortunately fails to let us poor folk with poor access to such things which ones they are and where they can be found. The Vikings also had longbows. The Hedeby bow being a good example. It seems that some historians (or editors for the programs they appear on) seem to forget that the breastplate and helmet were the thickest parts of a harness. The other sections were thinner and for a lot of battles sabatons weren't worn as many dismounted to fight on foot 'inthe English fashion". They also forget that not everyone could afford the best and latest and that a lot of armies (especically English ones later inthe medieval period conisted of lightly armoured archers). Also horses don't wear much and also get hit by arrows.
Vestigial_Thumb 07-31-05, 08:48 AM	I'de call 160cm long, there also the Viking (not sure if it was the viking or some other northern clan) composite, which was much shorter, about 70-80cm The vikings weren't a northern clan... :ahem: They were basically farmers who sometimes went on "trade missions." When many of them migrated to Iceland they took the basic knowledge of shipmaking with them but didn't really know how to make good weapons (let alone gather the materials needed since ore is rare in Iceland). Most of the good weapons in Icelandic history and sagas were gifts from Norwegians (heya Norge). Norse longbows weren't really that good (pretty much normal longbows). But some became mercenaries in Byzantion (called væringjar) and might have acquired bows with better quality. The letter Æ is pronounced I as in idol. The word is pronounced vireengyar (g as in gate)
Watchman 07-31-05, 04:00 PM	The Vikings were probably the ones who introduced the longbow to the British isles, anyway. The Celts (of whom the Welsh were a remnant) never were big fans of missile combat anyway, and there certainly does seem to have been a dearth of effective military archery for a while in the British Isles after the Romans left. Anyway, the Scandinavians were avid if little known users of the longbow through the Middle Ages - sparse population plus a lot of forest ergo lots of hunters by trade meant a whole lot of peasants could be recruited to serve as military archers with very little additional attention from the rulers. That aside, "composite longbow" is propably a bit of an oxymoron of a concept - because you don't need to make a composite bow long, and there's thus no "short" or "long" composite bow to begin with. By what I've read of the things their draw weight can be increased to the utmost limits of human ability to actually use with no meaningful change in overall dimensions just by altering the weapons' internal details and relationships. Adding arm lenght to increase power is only necessary with non-composite bows. The historical composite bows, be they ancient Egyptian or Renaissance Ottoman or 1800s Central Asian, always seem to have been something like meter or thereabouts in lenght, easily employable from horseback or chariot, and more often than not carried in a case hung from the belt besides a sabre or other sword. Plus horse-archers at least would commonly have two or three spare, unstrung bows in their own casing strapped somewhere on their person or horse harness...
Vestigial_Thumb 07-31-05, 06:57 PM	The Vikings were probably the ones who introduced the longbow to the British isles, anyway. No, not really.
roetroc 08-01-05, 04:12 AM	I think what Thumb is trying to say is that there are bows of the length of longbows and made of yew as well, that have been found in England before the arrival of the Vikings.