09-17-2006, 11:39 PM
Salutations all!
Great feedback and thanks for the links. Being in Europe (Holland) has the tendency to double prices to get things here from the US, but they sure have good blanks. I'm sure the Romans employed composite bows, the argument under review is more the number of bows they would have to field to be effective. I read the tread (link to forum) on penetration of mail, but draw-weights of English longbow are known from the Mary Rose Tudor shipwreck and we are speaking of a period in time more then a millennium before that. The discussion reminds me of the big game hunters debate on velocity versus bullet weight. All said and done, you end up real dead if you're on the receiving end of either. For those interested, velocity won in the end!
In the hands of an accomplished archer, a composite recurve makes good sense, he can pick of a single target at a distance, smashing through armor. When the aim is to cause disarray and break up a formation, a good shower of arrows is preferable to the "sniper" any day.
I think it is therefor most important to clarify how the bow was used in warfare by the Romans to be able to speculate on the type of bow (and its expense in making the bow and training the archer) most commonly used.
Of course, as I am more into first century Romans, this opinion perhaps only holds true for that period.
Great feedback and thanks for the links. Being in Europe (Holland) has the tendency to double prices to get things here from the US, but they sure have good blanks. I'm sure the Romans employed composite bows, the argument under review is more the number of bows they would have to field to be effective. I read the tread (link to forum) on penetration of mail, but draw-weights of English longbow are known from the Mary Rose Tudor shipwreck and we are speaking of a period in time more then a millennium before that. The discussion reminds me of the big game hunters debate on velocity versus bullet weight. All said and done, you end up real dead if you're on the receiving end of either. For those interested, velocity won in the end!
In the hands of an accomplished archer, a composite recurve makes good sense, he can pick of a single target at a distance, smashing through armor. When the aim is to cause disarray and break up a formation, a good shower of arrows is preferable to the "sniper" any day.
I think it is therefor most important to clarify how the bow was used in warfare by the Romans to be able to speculate on the type of bow (and its expense in making the bow and training the archer) most commonly used.
Of course, as I am more into first century Romans, this opinion perhaps only holds true for that period.
