Poll
56%
33%
11%
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Ah, you intended the Mongol to be on horseback... well explained.Well what are the circumstances? Is the Mongol rider charging straight at the Longbowman? At what distance and speed? Are they stationary? Who fires first?
Originally posted by Samurai100
though a longbow outranges a composite bow
According to wikipedia a certain Mongolian bow has a range of 500 M and the Welsh (English) Longbow only 165 to 228 m. But who knows with wiki.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
According to wikipedia a certain Mongolian bow has a range of 500 M and the Welsh (English) Longbow only 165 to 228 m. But who knows with wiki.
they are talking about different things though, the mongols only had to hit a stationary target at 500m, and the English page says that by Edward III's time, no range was under 400yards for the English.
I don't have an opinion either way, but I'm quite surprised about the mongols range.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't have an opinion either way, but I'm quite surprised about the mongols range.
I was surprised as well, that is an amazing range.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Why would archers be charging at each other?
Good point, archers wouldn´t be shooting at each other in battle, they are normally behind the lines and used in an artillery sort of way to take out the foot soldiers and cavalry.
Weren't English Lowbowmen generally just peasants with bows? Of course they were also trained every day on archery so that could cancel it out - but Mongols were a very warrior-esque race of people, and the typical Mongol archer rode on horseback, so if the English Longbowman missed it could prove very fatal for him seeing as how the horse could quickly close the gap - and if both parties missed the horse could also just trample the man.
However, as was stated above, Longbow definitely outranges the composite bow, but Mongols have more speed due to the horse ... hmm, I'm going to have to say...
The Longbowman, just due to his superiour range and power of the longbow. He could easily get in two or three more shots before the Mongol could even come into range.
The longbow was never meant to be a one-on-one targetted weapon. It was designed to be fired en-masse against enemies that were also in large numbers. Much the way you see the arrows fired by the Persians against the 300 Spartans and the like.
I believe the Mongol Bowman was also supposed to be extremely proficient on horseback and far more accurate 1-on-1.
Originally posted by jaden101True and false, they were also used with pinpoint accuracy, used to hit people say on castle sieges who were in windows (You know, the holes in the walls used for archers and such).... as well as the en-masse route.
The longbow was never meant to be a one-on-one targetted weapon. It was designed to be fired en-masse against enemies that were also in large numbers. Much the way you see the arrows fired by the Persians against the 300 Spartans and the like.I believe the Mongol Bowman was also supposed to be extremely proficient on horseback and far more accurate 1-on-1.
Originally posted by ChakraStrings
Weren't English Lowbowmen generally just peasants with bows? Of course they were also trained every day on archery so that could cancel it out - but Mongols were a very warrior-esque race of people, and the typical Mongol archer rode on horseback, so if the English Longbowman missed it could prove very fatal for him seeing as how the horse could quickly close the gap - and if both parties missed the horse could also just trample the man.However, as was stated above, Longbow definitely outranges the composite bow, but Mongols have more speed due to the horse ... hmm, I'm going to have to say...
The Longbowman, just due to his superiour range and power of the longbow. He could easily get in two or three more shots before the Mongol could even come into range.
The question itself is inane, the sort of thing done by that "Deadliest Warrior" programme, It's pointless and impossible to answer because ever archer was different and a single shot by either archer is enough to kill or incapacitate.
Saw a science sort of program where some experienced horseback archers rode at a target and fired at it. They were trying to find out if the added velocity of the horse moving forward would add itself in any sufficient way to the arrows velocity, well it didn´t.
But what it did show is that it was very difficult to hit a target on horseback, with the horse wobbling about and all that, I´m sure anyone who has ever rode a horse can appreciate this. Nevertheless in this case the range was about 20 m when they shot the arrow and they had difficulty hitting the large round stationary target.
As for the English longbow, didn´t this originate with the Welsh?
I actually had a go of one once at some medieval festival, you have to be really strong to pull the string back, and do do it multiple times in battle... respect!!!!