How do we get a timeline where advances in Metallurgy , physics and other relevant fields ensure that the bow is never made obsolete by the gun for as long as possible , with a POD of 1100 AD . The definition of guns does not extend to Cannons , only handheld projectile weapons, and the bow must be superior to a gun - not a Motar , not a cannon , not grenades .
Bows , not Guns
- Thread starter Advernt
- Start date
Flocculencio
Donor
Must they be actual bows or will crossbows do?
Trouble with actual bows is that they take a lot of training while with crossbows you can, to a certain extent, recreate the whole musket revolution that gave you hard hitting peasant/townsman armies.
Trouble with actual bows is that they take a lot of training while with crossbows you can, to a certain extent, recreate the whole musket revolution that gave you hard hitting peasant/townsman armies.
Well, bows were more acurate, had longer range and a faster reload time than the early guns.
Their only real dissadvantage was the training required.
Their only real dissadvantage was the training required.
The training and the price - guns were dirt cheap compared.
I don't see a chance in the long run if you want an industrial revolution - modern guns are just too good - but you could certainly slow things down if Europe had more of a martial archery culture. After all, it was only in Europe that the gun supplanted the bow. In large parts of Asia and Africa, despite the fact that they, too, had native gunsmithing and gunpowder manufacturing capabilities in no way inferior before 1800 - it augmented the bow. Have the same thing happen in Europe - England, one of the few places with a real culture of military archery, kept longbows in service until the early 1600s.
I don't see a chance in the long run if you want an industrial revolution - modern guns are just too good - but you could certainly slow things down if Europe had more of a martial archery culture. After all, it was only in Europe that the gun supplanted the bow. In large parts of Asia and Africa, despite the fact that they, too, had native gunsmithing and gunpowder manufacturing capabilities in no way inferior before 1800 - it augmented the bow. Have the same thing happen in Europe - England, one of the few places with a real culture of military archery, kept longbows in service until the early 1600s.
You could invent the modern compound bow earlier. It's easier to learn than traditional bows due to the cam and pulley system which makes it easier to hold at full draw. However it would still be much harder to learn than a crossbow or gun. Another problem with the bow, besides its already mentioned difficulty with training a large number of proficient users, is that it requires your men to be in good physical condition. Even experts cannot use their bows when they become sick or starved.
What you need for a gunpowder army isn't just technology but also sophisticated economic structure. Gunpowder isn't cheap nor easy to make on a large scale. Making steel and gun barrels on a large scale also require infrastructure and skilled gunsmiths. If your civilization suffers some sort of calamity which destroys the economic centers, the age of the gun would be delayed. Only thing I can think of is perhaps a Europe ravaged by Mongol invasion.
What you need for a gunpowder army isn't just technology but also sophisticated economic structure. Gunpowder isn't cheap nor easy to make on a large scale. Making steel and gun barrels on a large scale also require infrastructure and skilled gunsmiths. If your civilization suffers some sort of calamity which destroys the economic centers, the age of the gun would be delayed. Only thing I can think of is perhaps a Europe ravaged by Mongol invasion.
Is there any way to make the bow as easy to wield as a gun ? Also ,will earlier advancements in Metallurgy and chemistry and mechanics enable there to be repeating compound bows , as well as bows made out of superior synthentic material other than the traditional wood or sinew?
And yes , Crossbows count . Any weapon that fires arrows can be considered a bow in my definition .
What about arrows propelled by gunpowder?
And yes , Crossbows count . Any weapon that fires arrows can be considered a bow in my definition .
What about arrows propelled by gunpowder?
It is possible, methinks.
1. Hunting is free like in the nordic countries and not restricted to lords and nobility, which means that every peasant knows how to use a bow to get some protein on the table.
2. The crusade of Richard of England retakes Jerusalem. It is soon lost again amidst confusion and bickering among the crusaders, but for a while the English longbowmen, who mowed down the Saracen light cavalry where the heavy French knights had failed, the same Saracen light cavalry that devastated the Kingdom of Jerusalem's army at Horns of Hattin, are the heroes of Europe. Archery is blessed from churches and the image of the brave archer, the commoner who can gain wealth and honour on the battlefield, is fixed in the minds of many a serf and free-holding peasant alike. Archery gains a lot in status, becoming a bit of a fashion among nobles.
3. At Constantinople 1204, the mainly melee crusader army intended to recapture Jerusalem that has been lost after Richard recaptured it face a contignent of Trebizond Archers arrived by ship only a week earlier. The eastern Archer-heavy infantry prevails and the archers are showered in gratitude (and not few offers by beautiful ladies as well as expensive gifts by the citizenry of Constantinople). Through the orthodox world like the catholic before, archery becomes more connected with duty, honour and loyalty, as well as the commoners way of war and road to a better position in society. Serfs are detested, archers are glorified.
4. The Mongols take Buda and Pest and advance onto the Polish plains, eventually turning away from Vienna and Krakow, but leaving eastern Europe understanding the power of the mongolian compund bow, and a few people capable of using it.
5. Under these circumstances, the Swiss and Scot pikemen that emerge during the early 1300s carry BOTH pike and bow. Crecy is seen as a confirmation of what many battles have already told - the bow is superior to the melee cavalry. The success on the battlefield is now dependent on discipline, pike and bow. And when cavalry cannot ride masses of infantry down anymore, and pike against pike becomes an indecisive pokefest, masses of archers are seen as the only way to tear up holes in the pike porcupines. Muskets are still too heavy to be carried together with a pike, a mongolian compound bow and two dozen arrows are not though. The constant threat of arrow rains probably mean that the shield survives, and make the pike against pike even more indecisive.
6. Ultimately, it is not until Gustav II Adolf introduces the light, mobile artillery during the 30 years war that the pike-bow armed Spanish Tertia starts to decline. Artillerists are few, and thus Gustav II Adolf can afford to armour them with finely crafted plate, making them almost immune against the arrows raining down upon them. The artillery tears huge holes in the Tertias, who are unable to react to the small and more mobile Swedish bow-and-rapier infantry that use the holes in the pike porcupines to wreac havoc in the Imperial formations. It is not until the introduction of the flintlock musket with bayonet in the early 1700s that the bow is completely phased out of the European armies, however, ever since the combination of small, tactically mobile melee units and light artillery was introduced, the bow lost its superiority on the European battlefield. It would be seen in the hands of the Cossacks, various militias and assassins in need of a silent weapon for more than 150 years after that though, the most famous last usage probably being by a lone unit of Confederate Long-bow armed infantry at the battle of Shiloh 1862 and perhaps by its last proponent, Nathan Bedford Forrest, in his mounted archers raids in the wilderness of the western theater of the American Civil War.
1. Hunting is free like in the nordic countries and not restricted to lords and nobility, which means that every peasant knows how to use a bow to get some protein on the table.
2. The crusade of Richard of England retakes Jerusalem. It is soon lost again amidst confusion and bickering among the crusaders, but for a while the English longbowmen, who mowed down the Saracen light cavalry where the heavy French knights had failed, the same Saracen light cavalry that devastated the Kingdom of Jerusalem's army at Horns of Hattin, are the heroes of Europe. Archery is blessed from churches and the image of the brave archer, the commoner who can gain wealth and honour on the battlefield, is fixed in the minds of many a serf and free-holding peasant alike. Archery gains a lot in status, becoming a bit of a fashion among nobles.
3. At Constantinople 1204, the mainly melee crusader army intended to recapture Jerusalem that has been lost after Richard recaptured it face a contignent of Trebizond Archers arrived by ship only a week earlier. The eastern Archer-heavy infantry prevails and the archers are showered in gratitude (and not few offers by beautiful ladies as well as expensive gifts by the citizenry of Constantinople). Through the orthodox world like the catholic before, archery becomes more connected with duty, honour and loyalty, as well as the commoners way of war and road to a better position in society. Serfs are detested, archers are glorified.
4. The Mongols take Buda and Pest and advance onto the Polish plains, eventually turning away from Vienna and Krakow, but leaving eastern Europe understanding the power of the mongolian compund bow, and a few people capable of using it.
5. Under these circumstances, the Swiss and Scot pikemen that emerge during the early 1300s carry BOTH pike and bow. Crecy is seen as a confirmation of what many battles have already told - the bow is superior to the melee cavalry. The success on the battlefield is now dependent on discipline, pike and bow. And when cavalry cannot ride masses of infantry down anymore, and pike against pike becomes an indecisive pokefest, masses of archers are seen as the only way to tear up holes in the pike porcupines. Muskets are still too heavy to be carried together with a pike, a mongolian compound bow and two dozen arrows are not though. The constant threat of arrow rains probably mean that the shield survives, and make the pike against pike even more indecisive.
6. Ultimately, it is not until Gustav II Adolf introduces the light, mobile artillery during the 30 years war that the pike-bow armed Spanish Tertia starts to decline. Artillerists are few, and thus Gustav II Adolf can afford to armour them with finely crafted plate, making them almost immune against the arrows raining down upon them. The artillery tears huge holes in the Tertias, who are unable to react to the small and more mobile Swedish bow-and-rapier infantry that use the holes in the pike porcupines to wreac havoc in the Imperial formations. It is not until the introduction of the flintlock musket with bayonet in the early 1700s that the bow is completely phased out of the European armies, however, ever since the combination of small, tactically mobile melee units and light artillery was introduced, the bow lost its superiority on the European battlefield. It would be seen in the hands of the Cossacks, various militias and assassins in need of a silent weapon for more than 150 years after that though, the most famous last usage probably being by a lone unit of Confederate Long-bow armed infantry at the battle of Shiloh 1862 and perhaps by its last proponent, Nathan Bedford Forrest, in his mounted archers raids in the wilderness of the western theater of the American Civil War.
No. Bows require muscles while guns use chemical energy.
Modern bows are made out of steel, which is more expensive than wood or sinew. If you can make lots of steel, might as well make guns. There was a historical repeating crossbow, but it was a low powered short range weapon due to inherent design drawbacks.
Arrows are much harder to make than round lead balls. You can cast lead balls at a camp fire where as arrows must be made by a craftsman. If you have gunpowder, you might as well shoot lead.
A comprehesive and well planned response . Is there any way for the revival of the Bow in this TL?
Indeed, which is why after a battle they would remove out as many arrows as they could from the dead on the battlefield.
How about another visit or two from The Black Plague? Kill off enough of the general population makes the survivors too busy staying alive to develop the needed technologies and infrastructures.
Just to echo the comments above - the problem wasn't that the bow was not good enough compared to early guns, the problem was that it was harder to use.
If bows achieve a higher status and are more widely practiced then gun adoption would slow down.
A.- The Greeks did not think bows were an entirely honorable weapon. It seemed more heroic to look a man in the eyes as you hacked at him with a sharpened piece of metal than it did to stay at a distance and shoot arrows. A similar mentality existed in a lot of western culture. If you could change this prejudice against bows early on, then they could become more ingrained in the culture and good archers would always be available and this would make guns less inviting.
or B. - Have the Mongols (or Persians etc) have a greater influence in European culture. They did value the bow and these values could infect the Europeans. Same effects as (A) above.
If bows achieve a higher status and are more widely practiced then gun adoption would slow down.
A.- The Greeks did not think bows were an entirely honorable weapon. It seemed more heroic to look a man in the eyes as you hacked at him with a sharpened piece of metal than it did to stay at a distance and shoot arrows. A similar mentality existed in a lot of western culture. If you could change this prejudice against bows early on, then they could become more ingrained in the culture and good archers would always be available and this would make guns less inviting.
or B. - Have the Mongols (or Persians etc) have a greater influence in European culture. They did value the bow and these values could infect the Europeans. Same effects as (A) above.
Keenir
Banned
I think the Chinese had something like that in OTL.
and portable cannons.
(not guns...unless you squint from a few dozen yards away, and its foggy)
A crossbow fires either bolts or small round stones... thus by your definition is not allowed.
[QUOTEAdvernt;1290610]What about arrows propelled by gunpowder?[/[/QUOTE]
A form of bow-launched rocket? perhaps... but could be a potentially bad idea (BOOM! one archer blow to bits).
Repeating crossbows and arrow rockets (both rocket launched and bow launched) were all invented but they could not compete with the gun.
I think if you're trying to find a technological alternative to the gun, there probably isn't one. So to supress the age of the firearm, you'll have to somehow disable society's ability to make gun and powder. Two historical patterns exist. One is in societies where they lacked the sophistication, second is in societies where the ruling class limited firearms. The latter is usually accompanied by long periods of peace which made firearms unnecessary. If they were constantly at war, even anti-firearm rulers could not suppress them indefinatly.
I think if you're trying to find a technological alternative to the gun, there probably isn't one. So to supress the age of the firearm, you'll have to somehow disable society's ability to make gun and powder. Two historical patterns exist. One is in societies where they lacked the sophistication, second is in societies where the ruling class limited firearms. The latter is usually accompanied by long periods of peace which made firearms unnecessary. If they were constantly at war, even anti-firearm rulers could not suppress them indefinatly.