[RL History] Why is the longbow better than the shortbow?

[Aaron2]

In D&D (and every other game I've seen), longbows do more damage than shortbows. Yet, I'm wondering if this is accurate and, if so, why. For example, does a longbow with an 80 lb. pull impart more energy to the arrow than a composite shortbow with the same 80 lb. pull? They are firing the same arrows.

I know (or rather, I think I know) that the mongols kicked some serious euro-butt in the 1200s, centuries before the longbow achieved prominence. Where these weapons ever used concurrently?


Aaron (clueless)

 

[bensei]

Search for info on the 100 year war between England and France. The English conquered France almost completely due to their longbowman. The English longbow arrows even penetrated armor, which made it an incredably powerful weapon (in addition to the increased range, as in D&D).

Well, the English were finally kicked out of France by one girl , but that is another story.

 

[Mercule]

Wow! You're asking me to dredge up stuff from college.

What I can say is that, yes, there is a significant difference between the longbow and a standard/short bow. I'm not sure of the physics of it all, but I suspect that it just isn't possible to create a shortbow that had the same pull. Either that, or the longbow, much like a modern compound bow, allows easier draw and a stronger release.

One article I read said that the longbow even had better penetration (and accuracy, but that's a "duh") than the gunpower weapons of the late Medieval/early Renaissance. This article claimed that the longbow contiributed more to the decline of heavy armor than did gunpowder.

I've also been told by an Olympic-condender archer that the (long)bow is significantly more accurate than the crossbow. Something about the way a crossbow fires gives the bolt a wobble that throws off the aim. This is worse is heavier crossbows. Of course, the crossbow is a lot easier to get up to speed on, which is why it was a common weapon in armies.

Anyway, the point is that the bow, especially the longbow, was the best personal ranged weapon of the period for a dedicated/trained archer. And the difference is quite real.

 

[francisca]

In D&D (and every other game I've seen), longbows do more damage than shortbows. Yet, I'm wondering if this is accurate and, if so, why. For example, does a longbow with an 80 lb. pull impart more energy to the arrow than a composite shortbow with the same 80 lb. pull? They are firing the same arrows.

I know (or rather, I think I know) that the mongols kicked some serious euro-butt in the 1200s, centuries before the longbow achieved prominence. Where these weapons ever used concurrently?


Aaron (clueless)

Well, 1st edition, an arrow did d6, period. I'm not going to get into whether I think that is correct or d6/d8 for the short/longbow is more correct.

But anyway, made of the same materials, a longbow has the potential to have a greater draw than a shortbow. Note that I said potential. Composite bows will typically have a greater draw that non-composite bows. The mongolian and hun bows were composite, and some other eastern bows were actually made of steel.

So, yeah, I agree. An 80lb bow should hit you like an 80lb bow, regardless of whether it is short or long. I think what you are seeing in the ruleset is the assumption that longbows are going to have a higher draw in general, hence greater range, damage, etc. D&D is full of compromises like that. Some will say that combat/armor/weapons in D&D bear very little resemblence to real life. Others will say, it's a game, it's good enough, let's play!

 

[jasper]

I've also been told by an Olympic-condender archer that the (long)bow is significantly more accurate than the crossbow. Something about the way a crossbow fires gives the bolt a wobble that throws off the aim. This is worse is heavier crossbows. Of course, the crossbow is a lot easier to get up to speed on, which is why it was a common weapon in armies.

rofl I have seen some of bows the olympic peopl use. One had a what looked to be tripod suspended to center of the bow. The shooter said it balanced the bow. He got angry when I quip that with some bad leds,, running lights, his bow would like like something from buck rogers.

 

[Conaill]

An 80lb bow should hit you like an 80lb bow, regardless of whether it is short or long.

Not quite. Apart from the pull or the string, another contributing factor to how much momentum is imparted to the arrow is the draw length of the bow, because that determines how long the string accelerates the arrow when it is loosed. I'm not sure how big a factor this is compared to the pull weight, but it probably comes into play when comparing, say, crossbows with regular bows of the same pull.

 

[WayneLigon]

Warning: vague and possible inaccurate dredging of college information follows:

I seem to remember that the reason the longbow kicks so much butt is that the arrow goes much further (because the bow is a much larger lever?); technically in wartime with massed armies, you're not shooting straight at a foe most of the time; you'd be firing up in the air and the arrows rain down on the opponent, hoping to catch someone inadequately shielded, etc. The longbow can fire higher and further, which gives the arrow much much more power when it comes back down again.

 

[Wombat]

The true longbow (primarily English/Welsh) was a pretty rare puppy in Europe. Great range, heavy pull, and all the rest, it's biggest limitation came in the fact that you had to be more or less "born to the bow" -- as you grew up, you were constantly given larger and larger bows, you trained constantly, etc. Pound for pound it was a far superior bow to the standard bows of Europe (where the composite bows were far less common).

The biggest problem is that bows didn't come in two types (long vs. short), but hundreds of variaities (type of wood, treated or not, length, type of arrows, etc.). Just like most European swords become either Longswords or Greatswords in D&D, so too do most bows become either Longbows or Shortbows.

The wonders of gaming versus reality.

Want to discuss armour, next?

 

[francisca]

Not quite. Apart from the pull or the string, another contributing factor to how much momentum is imparted to the arrow is the draw length of the bow, because that determines how long the string accelerates the arrow when it is loosed. I'm not sure how big a factor this is compared to the pull weight, but it probably comes into play when comparing, say, crossbows with regular bows of the same pull.

That is a VERY good point. Needless to say, when you take stretch of the string, etc... into account, it gets pretty complicated.

 

[Utrecht]

In D&D (and every other game I've seen), longbows do more damage than shortbows. Yet, I'm wondering if this is accurate and, if so, why. For example, does a longbow with an 80 lb. pull impart more energy to the arrow than a composite shortbow with the same 80 lb. pull? They are firing the same arrows.

I know (or rather, I think I know) that the mongols kicked some serious euro-butt in the 1200s, centuries before the longbow achieved prominence. Where these weapons ever used concurrently?
Aaron (clueless)

Above and beyond the inherintly increased drawing power of the longbow. The English longbow had the advantage that its users trained from a very early age on the use of it. So much so that a skilled longbow user could have between 4-5 arrows in the air at any one time - effectively doubling/tripleing the combat power of the bowman.

Regarding the Mongols - well they were successful for different reasons - the primary reason was tactics and dicipline - and using weapons that were effective for those tactics. The Mongol bows were no where near the penetrating power of the longbow - but they were much more mobile - which fit niceling into their operation doctrine.