Why bows?
- Thread starter Chilly5
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Kekkuli
Recruit
well why bows its just because arrow is sharper than the stone and good archer is surely more accurate than slinger from far distance. sometimes they may have used other projectiles than stones but usually stones, so who would carry dozens of stones in pocket all the time? arrows take less room and dont weight so much.
13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
Channler said:
Remember that a scientific/ historical theory is not necessarily a whimsical idea made by some moron-it's a "prototype law" created from many observations and experiments.
Kissaki said:
They're also pretty useless as soon as your opponent starts wearing armour...
13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
@ Kissaki: But arrows are much more deadlier, no?
Even pellet bows lacked the power of the true an' blue bow & arrow, thus their general lack of use...
Plus, with practice a bowman should be able to avoid most, if not all, injuries from his own weapon.
Even pellet bows lacked the power of the true an' blue bow & arrow, thus their general lack of use...
Plus, with practice a bowman should be able to avoid most, if not all, injuries from his own weapon.
That would have to be some pretty heavy armour, then. A sling bullet might knock you stone dead even wearing a metal helmet. Sling projectiles, by the way, included both round and pointed stone and ceramic bullets, and even darts would be used. The range, on average, would be around 200 meters. Staff slings would obviousy have greater range and velocity.Archonsod said:
Stones can be found in situ. They're handy that way. But typically, slingers would bring their own supply. Handmade bullets are far more accurate -- and damaging. And because stones are heavier than arrows, as you pointed out, slingers are not as useful in offense as they are in defense.Kekkuli said:
Not really. Sufficient padding is all that's really required. An arrow is much more useful mainly due to the fact that it concentrates all of it's power into a much smaller area. It's also more accurate and less likely to be deflected. A sling also lacks the power of a decent bow.Kissaki said:
Maybe we could ask Robin Hood... 
The bow was a powerful weapon. Every army from the beginning of warfare until the fireweapons appearance had archers.
The bow was a powerful weapon. Every army from the beginning of warfare until the fireweapons appearance had archers.
If you know how to throw stone, it's one of the deadliest low ranged weapon. (I did try it, but I couldn't throw the stones)
This is not true. There is far more energy in the sling bullet than in the arrow. Sure, the arrow concentrates its power more (except in the cases where darts are slung), but it won't damage what it doesn't hit. Even though a stone will have a larger contact area, the increased mass more than makes up for it. The sling stone doesn't have to penetrate in order to cause serious damage. And I assure you, it will break bone through padding. This is not a stone which is thrown (which would be bad enough) -- this is a stone which is propelled at far greater speeds through centripetal force. And for centuries, the sling was more powerful than any bow.Archonsod said:
I also don't know why you would say that an arrow is harder to deflect than a sling bullet. An arrow has a longer body, and as such is easier to deflect than a small, round (or pointed) object. As for accuracy, I'm not sure you should discount the sling so easily. One of the benefits with the sling is precicely the accuracy in the hands of an experienced slinger.
If someone throws a stone at your chest it might hurt like hell. If someone slings a stone at your chest you might be dead. Slingers were used extensively until bows got powerful enough to reliably penetrate armour, because the slings both had greater range and greater force of impact than an arrow, and did not have to penetrate armour in order to damage what was behind it.Kekkuli said:
