.

Longbow/crossbow vs Horse Archery

  • Horse Archery

    Votes: 18 52.9%
  • Longbow/crossbow

    Votes: 16 47.1%

  • Total voters
    34

Users who are viewing this thread

The longbow came into full military use around the 14th and 15th centuries.  The last crusade was in the early 13th.  Saladin was a third Crusade jihadist -- he died just two years after the end of the third crusade, in 1193.  The longbow wasn't coming around for another few hundred years now.

Horse archers have a great degree of mobility (read:  Getting away).  Crossbows have great range and power, and are capable of wounding horses and taking them out of battle fairly easily.  Keep in mind, however, that these sort of one-off duels don't occur in real warfare as often as we like to pretend they do.  The crossbowmen are backed up by both infantry and cavalry, which the horse archers have to contend with as well.

There are reports from the first crusade regarding the effectiveness of horsebows against maille.  These mention men with numerous arrows just barely hanging from their hauberks, making them appear to have been wounded many times, but they bore no injury.

M.
 
Regardless, I think that with the longer range, more power, and (potentially) heavier armour, the longbowmen would win. Once you take out the horses, the archers would be out of their element.
 
Yes, but you'd still have to take out the horses. And I imagine a quick-moving horse that doesn't move around too predictably would be hard to kill. And even then; you too are being shot at.
 
Well lets put this into a historical context;

Crossbows/english longbows; both were coming into use in 14th century medieval Europe, although the mainstay of fights were to be decided with the aid of armoured men at arms and knights, either on foot or on horseback. Even great victories for the longbow such as Azincourt would not have been possible without the heavily armed, plated infantry formed by the men at arms. The longbow and crossbow were used to good effect but didnt maintain a level of field dominence in that wide an area, as they never truely spread outside of Europe.
Crossbows were used both in Europe and the far east, such as China, but they were for men who did not train like the English bowmen so would not have the swaying power of field dominence needed to make them a significant factor. Although they were used well within the Renaissence period, gun powder had begun to outdate them both.

Horse Archery; Genghis Khan commanded an army of roughly 60 000 Mongolian horsemen, all of whom were expected to bring a bow and a pony. Some used lances and some used swords, but all used recurved bows which had more stopping power then an English longbow and was more compact. This army of horsemen, all of whom were trained to use a bow from horseback and expected to use one in battle as a primary weapon, conquored the largest empire that has ever been known to man, bare none. Genghis's territory was larger then the British Empire, Alexanda the Great and the Roman Empire. And the first enemy Genghis put his army against was the Chinese, who employed crossbows and even were working on repeater crossbows at the time I believe.

So in short, and in comparision to uses from history, horse archer hands down.

Edit: Saladin lived about 50 or so years before the Mongolian nation started to spread under Genghis and encountered his successor (whose name I cannot recall). Accounts from the Mongol generals say that te horse archers that they fought (who were a generation after Saladin's horse archers, so there may be a difference) wore armour almost as good as their lameller armour and that there horseback archery was nearly as practiced as the Mongolian riders. However most Mongolians around that period trained from birth to ride and shoot, all learnt to ride, and there is an account where Arabian horse men equiped with bows, shields, spear, swords ect faced off agaisnt the Mongolians. Although being able to maintain a degree of accuracy, the Arabian horsemen could not aim at full gallop like the Mongolians could so I assume that Saladin's horse archers, the predecessors of the horsemen who faced the Mongols, were the same.

So in response I still believe that Saladin's horse archers, even if they were not as sufficient as Mongolian horsemen with bows on horseback, would be able to out manouvre and certainly out fight Longbow men or crossbowmen. It has to be remebered, that whilst Longbowmen and crossbowmen were archers carrying some melee weapons (although some carried n more then knives and wore nothing but cloth) that both Arabian and Mongolian horse archers werent really horse archers; they were cavalry which specialised in both ranged and melee togather from horseback. So again, horse achery hands down.
 
This army of horsemen, all of whom were trained to use a bow from horseback and expected to use one in battle as a primary weapon, conquored the largest empire that has ever been known to man, bare none. Genghis's territory was larger then the British Empire, Alexanda the Great and the Roman Empire.

False, the British Empire had more land mass under it's control than the Mongolian empire.
 
British Empire at its height in the 1900's

800px-1919_British_Empire_Map.svg.png



Mongolian Empire at its hight in 1200's

Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png



Ok I wont deny the British Empire is marginally larger, I was mistaken for saying it was smaller in simple landmass. But most of the Australian outback was undahbited and so was the colder Northern Canada, so I'm assuming that the Mongolian Empire was close in actual size when it came to habitable land , even if the British Empire was simple the larger one. But Britain did not conquor her Empire with horseback archery but with breechloader-rifle wielding soldiers who were trasnported with a large navy, so its kinda unfair to compare the two.
 
Kalnia said:
British Empire at its height in the 1900's

800px-1919_British_Empire_Map.svg.png



Mongolian Empire at its hight in 1200's

Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png



Ok I wont deny the British Empire is marginally larger, I was mistaken for saying it was smaller in simple landmass. But most of the Australian outback was undahbited and so was the colder Northern Canada, so I'm assuming that the Mongolian Empire was close in actual size when it came to habitable land , even if the British Empire was simple the larger one. But Britain did not conquor her Empire with horseback archery but with breechloader-rifle wielding soldiers who were trasnported with a large navy, so its kinda unfair to compare the two.

By that logic it's unfair to compare say Alexander and Genghis Khan. And while Asia might have more habitable land, the British Empire definitely ruled over more people, due to technological advances of course. Still, it does tell us a little of the merits of newer governments. The US could pretty much bomb everything with atom bombs and gain world domination (I assume some sneak launches could suprise the few other countries with atom bombs?), yet they control less than uneducated horse archers in a time where the bow was the most advanced weapon.
 
Genghis never actually settled or built large cities, although he did garrison a few cities in Arabia. His tuman's of warriors and their families moved to wherever the war was occuring, so although the Mongolian people never truely inhabited a place for long, the people who had lived there before remained and sent tribute. Chine was highly populated at the time in comparison to the rest of the world, Mongolia itself was left like you say uninhabited until the tribes periodically went back, the Northern Russian territories werent populated significantly but they were often a traveling location to Russian knights going to the Holy Land, and Arabia was covered in some desert but the cities were as populated as China so the Mongolian Empire did control quite a few people.
 
Either chose for mobility or inflicting heavy damage.... that's what the essence of this thread is  :neutral:
 
Like an english longbowmen, most of the more succesful nations which employed horse archery trained their lads from birht. Mongolians viewed ponies as equal to people in most respects where it was said they should be able to ride before tey could run, thats nonsense but it gives the idea of how they were raised.

Plus look at the way horses have been bred in the world. European horses are large and fast bulky things, or the old ones used for war are. They were bred to carry heavy men in heavy armour forward. In places like Arabia and Mongoloia, horses tended to be either small horses or ponies and where bred for endurance due to the harsh conditions. All the equines in Mongolia for example are ponies becuase a European horse is too big to survive. The smaller horses are easier to manouvre as well, making horseback archery easier.
 
depends on where the fight is....but I'd go with horse archers all the way. Parthians,Huns, Mongols, Seljuks, Ottomans and many others who succesfully fielded horse archer gained large lands.
 
Lord Burgess1 said:
ive also wondered why the western cultures never embraced horse archery
Many men, few horses. They used their arhcers on foot and in mass, and reserved the horses for shock or reconnaissance during most of their history.
 
Kalnia said:
British Empire at its height in the 1900's

800px-1919_British_Empire_Map.svg.png



Mongolian Empire at its hight in 1200's

Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png


Ok I wont deny the British Empire is marginally larger, I was mistaken for saying it was smaller in simple landmass. But most of the Australian outback was undahbited and so was the colder Northern Canada, so I'm assuming that the Mongolian Empire was close in actual size when it came to habitable land , even if the British Empire was simple the larger one. But Britain did not conquor her Empire with horseback archery but with breechloader-rifle wielding soldiers who were trasnported with a large navy, so its kinda unfair to compare the two.

Not really, the British used up to date technology and so did the Mongols.
Plus the British wasn't marginally larger.

# British Empire - 33.67 million km2 (1922)[9]
# Mongol Empire - 24.0 million km2 (1270)[2]
 
Back
Top Bottom