Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,654,340 times
Reputation: 14049
Advertisements
BTW, somebody in classical civilization had to be using a lot of archers, lest the Romans would not have ever bothered with the tortious maneuver. Are you guys sure you've got your facts in order?
BTW, somebody in classical civilization had to be using a lot of archers, lest the Romans would not have ever bothered with the tortious maneuver. Are you guys sure you've got your facts in order?
The testudo was usually used in assaults on fortifications, during a coup de main, and not as a field fighting formation. It was also used at times against Asiatic horse archers. But of course Parthians and Avars and such aren't really considered part of Classical Civilization.
Classical age Europeans were generally more fond of the javelin and the sling than the bow when it came to missle weapons. Unless you count Scythians I suppose.
Indeed, further research indicates the ease at which they're made was a large factor. A good bowyer can apparently make a long bow in a matter of hours.
Leovigildo, are you saying long bows are more powerful than even compound bows?
----
Yes, much more.
I once read an article saying that there were no bows, compound bows, or crossbows currently made more powerful that long bows.
But of course, long bows are not for athletics precisely, long bows are a weapon, a very difficult to use weapon that required life-long dedication and strengh. I once read that the shooting rate of archers at Agincourt was tremendous, like 20 or 30 arrows a minute.
Crossbows are not as powerful, about half the power I think. Crossbows are easier to use, and were used to target kings, counts and nobility.
The Parthians and Persians, although not in Europe as we currently define it, were Indo-European and made a lot of use of their archers if I'm not mistaken.
One of worst defeats in Roman history came at the hands of Parthian horse archers and heavy lancers at the battle of Carrhae in 53BC.Crassus took 40000 men on an ill conceived campaign into what is now modern Turkey.Only 10000 of them returned home.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,654,340 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
The testudo was usually used in assaults on fortifications, during a coup de main, and not as a field fighting formation. It was also used at times against Asiatic horse archers. But of course Parthians and Avars and such aren't really considered part of Classical Civilization.
Classical age Europeans were generally more fond of the javelin and the sling than the bow when it came to missle weapons. Unless you count Scythians I suppose.
The tortoise formation was used often by the Romans to defend against arrows (presumably from bows). BTW, didn't the Visigoths use recurves?
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,654,340 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leovigildo
----
Yes, much more.
I once read an article saying that there were no bows, compound bows, or crossbows currently made more powerful that long bows.
But of course, long bows are not for athletics precisely, long bows are a weapon, a very difficult to use weapon that required life-long dedication and strengh. I once read that the shooting rate of archers at Agincourt was tremendous, like 20 or 30 arrows a minute.
Crossbows are not as powerful, about half the power I think. Crossbows are easier to use, and were used to target kings, counts and nobility.
Because the recurve actaully was not as stable and took much more exotic materials to be come stable weapon.The recurve bow at teh time was onlky useful as a very short ranged weapon as it was hard to control.
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,654,340 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
Because the recurve actaully was not as stable and took much more exotic materials to be come stable weapon.The recurve bow at teh time was onlky useful as a very short ranged weapon as it was hard to control.
If they were hard to control, how did the Huns, Parthians, etc. manage to use them effectively whilst riding a galloping horse?
IIRC the recurve bow of the day was a composite of dried animal tendons for the tension side and horn for the compression side with a hardwood infill. All of this was held together with hide glue and sinew wrapping. The bowstring was sinew or hemp.
This structure results in a relatively short bow with a long draw that is very effective when used from horseback IN A DRY CLIMATE. Because the materials change drastically when wet the bows are useless in a damp or wet (read Europe) climate. The longbow, when strung with a hemp string, is relatively stable in a wet climate.
All hand drawn weapons require a long and constant training period to be used successfully. The development of firearms allowed armies to be made of amateurs armed with AKs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
