Oh boy, historical warfare discussion – so I have to comment. Maybe I can help clear up some things.
CarlH
ffive
I disagree though that they „deliver quite more punch“. Their shorter limbs are advantageous in regards to transmitting force to the arrow but the effect is quite neglible. I'd say it translates to maybe 5 % more punch compared to a self bow of the same draw weight. On the other hand, longbows generally came at higher draw weights than shortbows – perhaps because it's easier to make them (just make the limbs thicker) compared to short (composite) bows where various materials have to be glued together. Or maybe because shortbows were made with being shot from horseback in mind, which is harder.
cd13
Defiant Explorer
damnedfrog
With crossbows, she'd have the same problem. In my experience, the draw weight of a typical crossbow is way too much for the average woman.
Sling could be an option but I wouldn't consider it „very good“. Inherent accuracy is considerably lower than a bow so it requires even more practise and range is quite poor without the necessary strength.
Honestly, I think dagger it is – for the purposes Selene will most likely need it.
Defiant Explorer
Three Kingdoms would be third century AD but somehow I always imagined Inner Empire playing roughly in the late Mycenean / Greek dark age era, i. e. 1300-800 BC (although more medieval in terms of architecture & society).
ffive
On a side note, regarding the whole armor thing: Generally speaking, arrows don't pierce armor. You're probably referring to tests made using modern replicas made from cheap sheet metal. Historically, penetrating armor wasn't really a thing though. Chainmail is immune to common broadheads and can only be pierced by bodkin arrows, although the chance of penetration - let alone inflicting a substantial injury - is still greatly diminished (see Arab accounts of chainmail-clad crusaders charging them while looking like hedgehogs). Plate armour (certainly hardened plate) is basically immune to any kind of arrow fire because you can't physically produce enough force to destroy it. A cuirass has much more and stiffer mass than an arrow and even if you use a 150 lbs longbow, you're still bottlenecked by the arrow's wooden shaft which will break upon impact, dissipating its force. Plus, armour was typically made of high quality steel whereas arrow tips were made of scrap metal. I think crossbow bolts fare a bit better at punching through chainmail but even though they have thicker shafts, they suffer from the same problem of wood vs. steel and lacking mass.
Now in regards to Inner Empire, we've got the special bronze/iron age situation. Whereas bronze helmets and cuirasses were a thing, most arrowheads were still made out of flintstone. And the same logic goes for the early iron age: While the precious iron was reserved for weapons and other valuable items, arrowheads were still made out of more readily available bronze for a long time – or even still flintstone. (I'm referring to 1200-800 BC Europe here)
CarlH
You mean „composite“, i. e. bows made from composite materials. Compound bows are a modern invention using pulleys to reduce draw weight.
Yes, but it should be noted that spears in general aren't very good weapons for dueling / self defense against an armed opponent. The longer the spear, the unwieldier and the easier it is for the opponent to deflect & get behind the only dangerous part of the weapon – and the shorter the spear, the less it makes up for Selene's inherent reach disadvantage, defeating its purpose.
ffive
Very good point and that's exactly how archers were primarily used: As support units to hinder, disrupt and weaken the enemy. Even at Crecy, the English longbowmen didn't outright kill the French knights but blunted their charge by injuring their horses thus getting them bogged down in the muddy terrain.
The terms „Recurve bow“, „composite bow“ and „shortbow“ are all pretty much synonymous. One describes the shape, the second the materials and the third... is obvious.
I disagree though that they „deliver quite more punch“. Their shorter limbs are advantageous in regards to transmitting force to the arrow but the effect is quite neglible. I'd say it translates to maybe 5 % more punch compared to a self bow of the same draw weight. On the other hand, longbows generally came at higher draw weights than shortbows – perhaps because it's easier to make them (just make the limbs thicker) compared to short (composite) bows where various materials have to be glued together. Or maybe because shortbows were made with being shot from horseback in mind, which is harder.
cd13
Generally speaking, it isn't a problem to carry a strung bow around all day. The weakening effect only really sets in when you leave it strung for several days - especially if it's being exposed to the elements. (With composite bows being more prone to weather effects than self bows, I guess)
Defiant Explorer
Jup, steel inserts aren't a thing. Side note: Crossbows with steel limbs is also something video games lie about: Steel prods (arbalests) weren't really a thing until the very end of the middle ages as they required a cranequin to be loaded and their greater strength was diminished by the shorter draw length. Common medieval crossbows with cocking stirrup would generally have a composite bow.
damnedfrog
There are certainly examples of professional female warriors using bows, particularly in nomadic cultures, e. g. Thracians, Scythians etc. For the scenario, if Selene somehow gets access to a random bow, I'd say it should depend on her vigor if she can attempt shooting it. If it happens to be a hunting bow on the lower end (35-40 lbs.) and Selene has high vigor from carrying around those goods at the trading post, I'd give her a shot.
With crossbows, she'd have the same problem. In my experience, the draw weight of a typical crossbow is way too much for the average woman.
Sling could be an option but I wouldn't consider it „very good“. Inherent accuracy is considerably lower than a bow so it requires even more practise and range is quite poor without the necessary strength.
Honestly, I think dagger it is – for the purposes Selene will most likely need it.
Defiant Explorer
Three Kingdoms would be third century AD but somehow I always imagined Inner Empire playing roughly in the late Mycenean / Greek dark age era, i. e. 1300-800 BC (although more medieval in terms of architecture & society).
ffive
Well, showing pictures of the bows doesn't say anything about their draw weight – and you already admitted that they don't really range in the spectrum of historical war bows. On the other hand – as stated above – I agree that shooting a bow just requires a strong woman, not one with superhuman strength. I guess if Selene finds the right bow for her, it might be useful. Although keep in mind that a bow is only useful if you see/hear your opponent coming. Otherwise she certainly won't have an arrow nocked and will need several seconds of calm before she has something to threaten her attacker with – in which case 10-15 meters will be VERY close. (Provided that she's even carrying around a strung bow to begin with...)
On a side note, regarding the whole armor thing: Generally speaking, arrows don't pierce armor. You're probably referring to tests made using modern replicas made from cheap sheet metal. Historically, penetrating armor wasn't really a thing though. Chainmail is immune to common broadheads and can only be pierced by bodkin arrows, although the chance of penetration - let alone inflicting a substantial injury - is still greatly diminished (see Arab accounts of chainmail-clad crusaders charging them while looking like hedgehogs). Plate armour (certainly hardened plate) is basically immune to any kind of arrow fire because you can't physically produce enough force to destroy it. A cuirass has much more and stiffer mass than an arrow and even if you use a 150 lbs longbow, you're still bottlenecked by the arrow's wooden shaft which will break upon impact, dissipating its force. Plus, armour was typically made of high quality steel whereas arrow tips were made of scrap metal. I think crossbow bolts fare a bit better at punching through chainmail but even though they have thicker shafts, they suffer from the same problem of wood vs. steel and lacking mass.
Now in regards to Inner Empire, we've got the special bronze/iron age situation. Whereas bronze helmets and cuirasses were a thing, most arrowheads were still made out of flintstone. And the same logic goes for the early iron age: While the precious iron was reserved for weapons and other valuable items, arrowheads were still made out of more readily available bronze for a long time – or even still flintstone. (I'm referring to 1200-800 BC Europe here)
Last edited:
