The Great Longbow Debate

[Hussar]

/me shows his ignorance

S'mon, can you do that? Can you simply slap on a new hilt onto an existing sword? I thought the hilt was all one piece. ((Like I said, I'm totally showing my ignorance and shredding any geek cred I might have.))

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

THIS is the longbow I want.

Google Image Result for http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/Photos/MFC_Longbow_photo_main.jpg

S'mon, can you do that? Can you simply slap on a new hilt onto an existing sword? I thought the hilt was all one piece. (

File:Sword parts.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Underneath that grip and pommel is the sword's tang, which is the part of the blade that extends through the crosspiece/crossguard/basket of the sword.

The crossguard slides up to the tang and is held in place by spacers (on occasion) and the bindings of the grip.

That grip is layers of cloth and/or leather and wire that makes the sword easier and more comfortable to grip. IOW, its practical ergonomics.

The pommel secures the whole mess and helps counterbalance the sword and keep it from sliding from the hand when in use.

In some -rare- cases, an extra long, textured pommel would be used, essentially extending the grip another few inches. Essentially, just enough to add room for a more comfortable 2-handed grip.

 

[Umbran]

...historically a 'long sword' was more what 3e calls a 'great sword'.

Respectfully, S'mon, most of the issues we have with D&D weapons is that there was no standard historical nomenclature (heck, these people didn't even have standardized spelling). Historically, there is no one "long sword". Different people called weapons various things in various languages, and they don't all match up.

Thus, the problem. Person A using one source calls one thing a long sword. Person B using another source calls the same weapon something else, and calls a different weapon a long sword.

 

[Andor]

Third, the myth of the longbow: The English/Welsh longbow was a decent weapon, and it was quite important in Europe during the 100-Years War. That said, it was not particularly better than (in fact not quite as good as) steppe archers' composite horse bows. The pull strengths of the latter were higher and the arrows were lighter, resulting in higher "muzzle" energies, faster rates of fire, longer ranges, and better accuracy for the horse bow.

There's more to it than pull weights. The higher at rest string tension and more favorable acceleration curve allowed by the geometry of the recurve bow allows it to transfer more energy to an arrow even with identical draw weights and lengths. It's worth noting however that from what I understand of the glues used a mongol horsebow would have delaminated if exposed to the constant english humidity, and a english yew bow would have dried out and cracked in the mongols roaming grounds. Archers do what they can with the materials available to them.

Could you do me a favour?

Keep your rudeness to yourself.

Neither of the two comments criticising my statements have been needed or deserved from Wulf or you. In one, I was simply repeating what I'd read online in order to foster debate on the subject. In the second, I was merely paraphrasing what had already been said in the topic.

In addition you've misinterpreted what I've said, creating an incident that you then used to insult.

The pull of a bow is roughly 30". Think on that and try reading what I posted again.

Sorry mate but rudeness aside, if you knew the bits of physics anybody should leave high school with you wouldn't have passed it along, you would have mocked the original poster for his ignorance.

And you're right, I did misinterpret what you meant. Yes, the arrow is at maximum energy as it leaves the string so optimal energy is with the arrow tip at arrow length - resting string to bow gap inches past the bow. So with a typical 37" clothyard shaft fired from a longbow with a 7" brace height optimal energy is indeed achieved at 30" past the archers outstreched arm.

That said you won't catch me volunteering to get shot by a longbowman even if I was an inch away from his fingertips. Those points are sharp and arrows accelerate very quickly.

 

[Bold or Stupid]

Indeed so. The city of Worcester, in the UK, where I live, has such a place. I believe also (although this may be fallacious) that the law which required men to do this is actually still on the statute in some places, and therefore potentially enforceable!

I can't remember the details but due to the fact that in British law it's easier to create a law than remove one (apparently), there is a law that allows judges to throw silly cases right out the door to stop idiocies of that sort. If they didn't I'd be off to Chester to shoot Welsh people.

 

[S'mon]

Respectfully, S'mon, most of the issues we have with D&D weapons is that there was no standard historical nomenclature (heck, these people didn't even have standardized spelling). Historically, there is no one "long sword". Different people called weapons various things in various languages, and they don't all match up.

All I'm saying is that historically, according to eg the last sword display I saw (at the Archaeolink centre in Aberdeenshire, Scotland), big ole two-handed swords, like what D&D calls greatswords, were sometimes called "long swords", because they were longer than regular swords (arming swords) and broadswords. These same swords were also sometimes called great or grete swords.

By contrast, AFAIK regular-sized 3'-blade straight edged swords were never ever referred to as "long swords".

There's a difference between a sometimes-use and a never-use.

 

[S'mon]

It's worth noting however that from what I understand of the glues used a mongol horsebow would have delaminated if exposed to the constant english humidity, and a english yew bow would have dried out and cracked in the mongols roaming grounds.

I remember reading this is exactly what happened to English longbow archers in Spain.

 

[mmadsen]

I recommend reading The Physics of Medieval Archery, which is more about the physics of bows, and Infantry Missile Weapons in the Renaissance, which compares longbows, crossbows, and early firearms.

 

[Doug Sundseth]

There's more to it than pull weights. The higher at rest string tension and more favorable acceleration curve allowed by the geometry of the recurve bow allows it to transfer more energy to an arrow even with identical draw weights and lengths. It's worth noting however that from what I understand of the glues used a mongol horsebow would have delaminated if exposed to the constant english humidity, and a english yew bow would have dried out and cracked in the mongols roaming grounds. Archers do what they can with the materials available to them.

There's also the fact that the shorter steppe bow put less energy into accelerating the arms of the bow and more into accelerating the arrow than a longbow (which is a rather inefficient design). As you note, it's a complex problem.

I wasn't trying to explain all the details, but rather to address the (unfortunately widespread) myth that the longbow was some sort of miracle weapon. It was a good bow for its time and place, and the doctrine the English developed got the most out of its capabilities, but that's pretty much the extent of it.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

A) The Longbow with it's very long length means that the archer can use his fingers rather than a strap or ring to pull the string like with a Mongol bow.
the reason is simple geometry: the Mongolian style of bow has a VERY steep "V" shape string when cocked, this cuts into the fingers, making it impossible to use only fingers for high strength bows, so a strap or ring had to be used, thus, they weren't that great
The supposed "super accuracy" of the Mongolian archers was a myth, as when you have hundreds of folk firing, well, you WILL hit some poor twit in the head etc

B) The Lobgbow's arrows are much bigger and heavier thanthe Mongolian ones, thus, more impact force.
Please note form tests and skeletons, longbow hits shattered bones (even smaller bows), the impact energy itself is enough to stop you cold a lot of the time.

C) Aye, the .45 ACP is the most effective handgun cartridge, iirc 91% 1 hit stops. with 95% for buckshot and 99% for shotgun slug?
Big and slow is a much better manstopper, hence the British use of the infamous .455, or the reliability of a shotgun with buckshot.
On the other hand, the .44 magnum is ismply too damn fast.
However, the enormous size and speed of the .50 cal Browning machine gun bullet means there's rarely such a thing as a "flesh wound" with it (Flesh wounds form it are most often air shock burns as it passes very close) .50 Browning will blow limbs off or kill with hydraulic shock.
Arrows on the other hand, if they have broadheads are far more lethal than most bullets, as most gunshot victims survive, most knife or arrow wound victims do not, because bullets rarely cut arteries, broad bladed sharp weapons do (hence a Roman gladius was incredibly lethal as it was 3" wide stabbing blade)

D) Are you sure on the weights I read and impact energies? .02 KG versus .06 KG...??
Longbow war arrows are a fair bit heavier than typical "archery" arrow, iirc, and bullets, well WHICH bullet? .22 LR is tiny, .50 HMG is enormous
form what I recalled I though such arrows had about the same impact energy as a .38 or 9mm? (I'm not sure on that though)
a .22LR has around 55 foot pounds and a 9mm around 300+ foot pounds of power.
(Man I wish we'd all been scoholed purely in metric, I cna only think in soem term sin foot pounds, stone, or feet/inches, lol)