Ask me about archery, longbows especially.

[Demesnedenoir]

You could fire multiple arrows... but uhm, no, not accurately.

String silencers would be a must for this sort of application, assuming they are sneaking in tight to perimeter patrols. Longbows tend to be quieter than compounds, but still, silencing them when your life is on the line is a good idea.

 

[intipablo]

What do you know about the Ancient Mauryan Empires longbows? I read somewhere about them and I was wondering if any of you knew anything?

 

[Mr. Steve]

I'm sure we know the adage "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather." However, what is the feasibility of training large numbers of infantry in basic archery with small bows?

In my work in (perpetual) progress I have, of course, specialized foot archers that use a longbow-type bow; however, I have also issued small bows and a small number of arrows to the well-armored heavy infantry, allowing them to loose a few volleys while the lines close before the charge. All infantry in this army have received basic archery training, they are far from expert, but competent enough in the basics to have some effect on thinning the enemy ranks before the lines collide.

So now I suppose the question is two-fold: 1) Is it feasible to mass train infantry in basic archery to make them at least functional archers in this limited capacity and 2) Are armored heavy infantry capable of effectively using bows, or will such equipment interfere with the motions? And hell, I suppose 3) How heavily can you armor archers before their armor gets in the way of the motions?

Thanks in advance everyone.

 

[DMThaane]

In my work in (perpetual) progress I have, of course, specialized foot archers that use a longbow-type bow; however, I have also issued small bows and a small number of arrows to the well-armored heavy infantry, allowing them to loose a few volleys while the lines close before the charge. All infantry in this army have received basic archery training, they are far from expert, but competent enough in the basics to have some effect on thinning the enemy ranks before the lines collide.

The most obvious problems I see with this are logistics and training. Bows take a fair amount of training and if these smaller bows have weak draw weights they may struggle for distance and armour penetration. If they have heavy draws then being small won't take away from the need to build muscle. Time spent training with these bows is time not spent training with their melee weapons and learning how to fight and manoeuvre in formation. Bows will also need to be manufactured in large numbers, you'll need arrows, a lot of arrows. Your supply train will need to carry all these arrows. If these bows use arrows of a different length you've just introduced another complexity. Furthermore these soldiers will now have to carry and care for these bows and these arrows and fight while carrying them. They're likely to be resentful of that as they'll already be carrying and looking after a lot of equipment.

That said, nothing is impossible in fantasy and you could certainly make it sound convincing enough for most readers. There are also historical equivalents you could consider. The Romans equipped their infantry with pila (which are basically a form of javelin) and later with weighted darts called plumbata and 10th century Byzantine war manuals recommend equipping every man with a sling. A benefit of slings is that plentiful ammunition can be found just lying on the ground.

So now I suppose the question is two-fold: 1) Is it feasible to mass train infantry in basic archery to make them at least functional archers in this limited capacity and 2) Are armored heavy infantry capable of effectively using bows, or will such equipment interfere with the motions? And hell, I suppose 3) How heavily can you armor archers before their armor gets in the way of the motions?

1) is possible but you'll need an archery culture that heavily incentivises studying the art, either for philosophical, social, or legal reasons. You'd probably want to recruit primarily from higher classes of society for your infantry, as they'd have more spare time to practice multiple arts. This would likely be true even if you have a devoted military class. 2) is a little outside my area but while armour may reduce the draw weight you'd be capable of drawing I don't see decently designed armour preventing use of a bow, especially not in a culture that prized it so high. 3) again, a little outside my area but I suspect that if you're too heavily armoured to even use a bow then you're too heavily armoured to actually fight. You're basically talking jousting armour at this point and that was never meant to see a war.

 

[Russ]

In my work in (perpetual) progress I have, of course, specialized foot archers that use a longbow-type bow; however, I have also issued small bows and a small number of arrows to the well-armored heavy infantry, allowing them to loose a few volleys while the lines close before the charge. All infantry in this army have received basic archery training, they are far from expert, but competent enough in the basics to have some effect on thinning the enemy ranks before the lines collide.

So now I suppose the question is two-fold: 1) Is it feasible to mass train infantry in basic archery to make them at least functional archers in this limited capacity and 2) Are armored heavy infantry capable of effectively using bows, or will such equipment interfere with the motions? And hell, I suppose 3) How heavily can you armor archers before their armor gets in the way of the motions?

Interesting questions. I agree with DM Thane about the logistical and cost problems, but vary a little bit on the technical aspects.

It is not the size of the bow that really requires training, it is the pull. For indoor shooting I own a long bow, six foot in length that only pulls 40 lbs. It is not hard to train someone to use that bow competently enough for some short range shooting. Your problem then becomes time. If the enemy is charging you (particularly on horseback) they can close the distance pretty quick, and then you have to put away your bow and prepare your next weapon after you have loosed your "thinning" volleys...sounds hard. Woe betide you if you don't complete your weapons switch before the enemy makes contact.

I forsee a problems carrying all this stuff into battle. If your heavy infantry has to carry their bow, plus quivers, plus all their melee weapons onto the field of battle, and then off the field of battle afterward that sounds like a lot of work and bulk to haul around. Plus who will maintain all their bows and their melee weapons in between battles. Normally a soldier does most of his own maintainance but as you add new classes of weapons you increase the demand for skills for each soldier, unless you have some sort of specialized or sophisticated maintainence system.

Armour could get in the way of bow use. If you are in full plate armour it would be very hard. Anything that binds up your shoulders would be a problem, and any kind of closed or full face helmet could also be a problem. I think your breastplate could be a problem, but am not sure. Maybe I should try it at home. Gauntlets would definately be a problem in handling.

Mixed roles are a tricky thing on the "combined arms" battlefield, and often, armies evolve towards having more specialists rather than multi-role fighting men. Lots to think about and discuss though.

 

[SaltyDog]

I used to shoot a compound bow when I was younger, but I know very little about recurve bows or longbows. Both follow the same principle of a fixed strong on flexible limbs, right? I remember compound bows being very loud when fired, making a whip-like crack. Of course you can put silencers on the limbs to make them quieter, but do receive and long bows have the same problem? Most people think bows are silent and I know compounds are not, but what of the other types?

It depends on the bow. I think all have the possibility of being loud or quiet, without silencers of course. One recurve I shot with for a couple of years was quite silent even without a silencer. Some however I have shot are loud, very loud in fact.