D&D 5E Why do guns do so much damage?

[Cadence]

Google-scholaring around about bows, http://www.thesugarbakers.net/Archery-Testing.pdf

 

[Fenris-77]

@Ovinomancer - There's a lot of range in historical estimations of Longbow draw weight, even looking at the same sources you get a range from 80-90 to 100-120 and up. Bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose (1545) have been estimated to have a 30 inch draw weight of 150-160lbs and ranging up to some massive 180-185lb monsters. So naturally there's a pretty big swath of estimates for effective range. Historians before the mid-80's were mostly low in their estimates (the wreck of the Mary Rose was raised in, um, 1982 I think). The 130-odd bows recovered from that wreck are the only extant examples we have of longbows from anywhere close to the period of its dominance.

I love that people spend enough time doing practical history that you can even talk about the guy you're talking about, and the example is worth bringing up. Where I take that with a grain of salt is that I suspect he hasn't done enough longbow work that his muscles, joints and spine look like those of medieval English longbowmen did. English archers has enormously asymmetrical builds. Anyway, this is very much an aside.

 

[Fenris-77]

Is it? What a terrible job of it, then. Katana-esque indeed!

Just one more example of how D&D is not a historical simulation engine.

 

[Ovinomancer]

@Ovinomancer - There's a lot of range in historical estimations of Longbow draw weight, even looking at the same sources you get a range from 80-90 to 100-120 and up. Bows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose (1545) have been estimated to have a 30 inch draw weight of 150-160lbs and ranging up to some massive 180-185lb monsters. So naturally there's a pretty big swath of estimates for effective range. Historians before the mid-80's were mostly low in their estimates (the wreck of the Mary Rose was raised in, um, 1982 I think). The 130-odd bows recovered from that wreck are the only extant examples we have of longbows from anywhere close to the period of its dominance.

I love that people spend enough time doing practical history that you can even talk about the guy you're talking about, and the example is worth bringing up. Where I take that with a grain of salt is that I suspect he hasn't done enough longbow work that his muscles, joints and spine look like those of medieval English longbowmen did. English archers has enormously asymmetrical builds. Anyway, this is very much an aside.

Joe Gibbs. Uses Mary Rose replica bows. Has a video firing a 200lbs draw against a period breastplate. Says he can shoot 160# "all day." I'll let you suggest maybe he's not fit enough. ;D

I also think the asymmetry is mistly apocryphal.

 

[wellis]

The actual efficacy of bows versus muskets is not established well, either. Numerous confrontations with bow armed Native Americans during the 7 years war just prior to the American Revolution did not suggest that bows were significantly or even mildly more effective than firearms. Sure, these weren't English Longbows, but I don't think Franklin was talking about those either. If bows were so much more effective, then large standing armies would have specialist units, with additional prestige added. This is notably absent from all modern armies of the time, but other specialist weapon units did exist.

It's telling, in my mind, of the effectiveness of even early firearms over bows that the Native Americans were enthusiastic adopters of the musket or rifle, whenever they could get their hands on them.

And of course, the Japanese were incredibly enthusiastic as well.

In addition, the idea that muskets are super inaccurate is due to pop-culture and the fact European militaries trained primarily for volley fire, not aimed fire with muskets.

When the Japanese were invading Korea in the late 1500s, IIRC there are quite a few accounts of Japanese being able to have effective ranges up to like 200 meters (660 feet) due to the fact they actually did train for some accuracy.

It's also interesting how good many of their early aiming sights were for the time.

Anyways, one advantage guns have over bows is the shock of bullet having slammed into you. I've hewrd that the sheer impact had a sort of psychological impact on those being shot at. About early guns I mean.

 

[Fenris-77]

Joe Gibbs. Uses Mary Rose replica bows. Has a video firing a 200lbs draw against a period breastplate. Says he can shoot 160# "all day." I'll let you suggest maybe he's not fit enough. ;D

I also think the asymmetry is mistly apocryphal.

The asymmetry is completely borne out by skeletal remains from the time. The osteological evidence is pretty incontrovertible.

I'll take a pause here to watch a bunch of Joe Gibbs and Tod's Workshop videos (both of which I highly recommend, now that I've seen them).

If he's firing 160 all day then he's doing well. Being able to even draw, never mind fire accurately, a 200lb bow is impressive (Joe is pretty beastly). Does that make him the equal of a professional longbowman from the middle ages? Um, I guess? It's not about me doubting his skill or fitness, just about exactly how well he mimics the medieval reality (which we simply don't know, since all we have is bones and art to go on)). To my eye his technique looks pretty solidly medieval, that's about as far as that gets us. It's certainly not proof positive going either way.

 

[MGibster]

The asymmetry is completely borne out by skeletal remains from the time. The osteological evidence is pretty incontrovertible.

Come on! You don't have to make up words when boneological already exists. I kid. I kid. For those of you interested, you can find evidence of what Fenris-77 is talking about from a 2019 article here.

 

[Fenris-77]

Come on! You don't have to make up words when boneological already exists. I kid. I kid. For those of you interested, you can find evidence of what Fenris-77 is talking about from a 2019 article here.

I actually took some archeological osteology when I was in school so I feel justified busting the big words.

 

[Ixal]

It's telling, in my mind, of the effectiveness of even early firearms over bows that the Native Americans were enthusiastic adopters of the musket or rifle, whenever they could get their hands on them.

And of course, the Japanese were incredibly enthusiastic as well.

Mainly because the Native American bows were not compareable to European war bows and in war numbers count which is why the Japanese were glad to have guns in addition to their bows.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Mainly because the Native American bows were not compareable to European war bows and in war numbers count which is why the Japanese were glad to have guns in addition to their bows.

Do you mean English longbows? That tradition was short lived and didn't really escape England. The "bow" of Europe was a much more pedestrian weapon, and also not in wide use for anything even by the time of the early European colonists. Which, I might remind you, means that it fell out of favor in Europe between Agincourt in 1415, and when Columbus sailed in 1492. I had a good run during the 1300's, and into the 1400's, but that's a very short time for such a weapon to justify the mythology that's built up around it.