As far as I know, the weapons of choice in that era were swords and spears. I was wondering if it would seem terribly out of place if the people in my story had bows and arrows too, or if that would smack of a typical fantasy setting.

quote:

---

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, archery's importance as a cultural advance ranks with the development of speed and the art of making fire. The use of the bow appears in folklore from over 3000 years ago, although its invention probably predates that era. The development of archery followed a course of key innovations by many historical cultures. About 3500 BC., Egyptians were using bows as tall as themselves. Their arrowheads, originally constructed of flint, were later made of bronze. Almost 2000 years later, the Assyrians developed the shorter recurve bow, which provided more power and easier handling. One central Asian clan, the Parthians, became famous for their ability to shoot backwards from a galloping horse, making the Parthian shot a meaningful phrase in our language. At about 1200 BCE, the Hittites developed the skill of shooting from moving chariots, and around 500 AD, the Romans, formerly second-rate archers, began to draw the arrow to the face rather than the chest, giving the shot more accuracy.

---

Someone mentioned slingshots. I agree. Not the forked stick shanghai type but actual slings and stones were much more common, especially in arid regions. You could achieve a similar effect to the one you're after with a hail of slingstones instead of arrows and avoid the Samuel the Lamanite comparisons.

However, you said it was set in a place loosely based on the Palestine 2000 years ago. Is it actually set in that time and place? If not you are freed-up considerably to invent, invent, invent.

Bows however could be made of bone if you made an animal whose bones did not lose their marrow or if they do it doesn't affect their tensile strength ie dragonbone or some such creature.

See, all a storm of arrows is going to do is "pin" an advancing infantry force for about fifteen-twenty seconds. It probably won't inflict any meaningful casualties by itself. And you can't capitalize on the pinning effect with another infantry force, by the time they get there the enemy will be recovered and ready. And a light cavalry force will be eaten alive by heavy infantry, or even regular infantry if the infantry has the numbers (and the infantry always has the numbers).

However, the OP may want to have horse archers, or chariot archers. The assryians and egyptians respectively used bows to decimate (literally and figuratively) their enemies.

quote:

---

For heavy cavalry, you need stirrups, and the western world didn't have them for a really long time. And without heavy cavalry to ride down on a pinned infantry force, there isn't any point pinning them in the first place, not if you have to equip a large number of your soldiers as archerers to do it.

---

I have to partially disagree with this statement. Stirrups may not have reached the western world until sometime in the first few centuries AD but this was not a huge barrier to warfare involving heavy cavalry. The lack of stirrups has always been a puzzle since there are numerous examples in ancient sources of heavy cavalry units functioning on the battlefield in times at least as early as the 3rd century BC. Yes, in some of these examples the cavalrymen actually dismount in order to fight on foot, but our sources also imply that this wasn't really how they were supposed to fight and there are examples of cavalry charges against infantry formations where the cavalrymen remained on and fought from upon their horses. Modern thinking (backed up by riding experiments) now holds that stirrups were not essential for the shock tactics heavy cavalry were employed for since the use of the rigid four horned saddle meant that the rider was able to stay in the saddle.

I think they actually did have trebuchets, at least the romans did in Europe. The tree thing, again, might have been an issue. Massive cedars did grow in the mediterrenean, but savaging the forests was a common practice after any kind of war.

Isrealites made bows out of reed, wood, and water buffalo horns. B.C. bows found in Denmark were one-piece bows of yew (as previously mentioned) and elm. These bows were 'tillered,' meaning they had an equal amount of flexibilty on the top and bottom. I'd guess at your historical level, the staves themselves would be cut from saplings and whittled into a desired shape (i.e. short bow).

I found an interesting, if simplistic, site about archery...it had this to say on ancient composite bows:

quote:

---

The first composite bow appeared around 2800 BC. It was most likely developed in Asia, though it was also widely used in Egypt. Composite bows were made of either part wood and other material, or entirely out of other materials. In areas where wood of suitable kind and sufficient quantities were not to be had, composite bows developed. Horn, bone, sinew and gut in various combinations were used in place or in conjunction with wood. Usually the
stave would be of a wooden core, with the back side (side facing the target) covered with animal sinews or tendons, and on the belly (side facing archer) would be applied horn, or sometimes metal.

The reasons for the uses of horn and sinew in bow making become apparent when you look at their properties. The horn was placed on the belly of the bow because horn resists compression, and springs back into shape the moment pressure is released. Sinew is, on the other hand, elastic and was placed on the back of the bow because after it is stretched it quickly shortens back to its original shape. When the two materials were applied this way, the composite bow became much more powerful than its predecessor could ever be.

The Chinese composite bow differed from the usual composite in that it was made entirely out of vegetation. The back would be made from a strip of fresh bamboo that was cut after the end of the growing season (in place of elastic sinew) and the belly would be made from dried, year-old bamboo (in place of the compression-resistant horn). Vegetable glue was applied and the whole thing was lacquered.

---

http://library.thinkquest.org/27344/history.htm

As far as arrows are concerned, I've heard of chokecherry being used by Native American tribes, because of its generally straight and lightweight 'branches.' In terrain like you described, a hardy type of brush with similar branches would be necessary.

As for availability reasoning, perhaps a plot element like one of emperor Chalemagne's (768-814) would be useful. Charlemagne ordered that the yew tree be cultivated to ensure a plentiful supply of its wood. You could easily work this into your exposition.

Almost forgot...the bowstrings at your development level would probably be formed from the long leg tendons of deer/antelope.

Hope some of this helps.

Inkwell
-----------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous

I don't think the timber is too much of an issue, especially if Brinestone is creating a world based on palestine rather than trying to actually represent palestine.

Coppicing was a common practice used for obtaining long straight sticks or pollarding if there were grazing animals around.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/projectileweapons.htm <----- about projectile weapons of Ancient Egypt.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/war.htm <----- The evolution of the Egyptian military.

http://www.reddragoninn.com/weapons.html <----- Ancient Weapons

http://nemo.nu/ibisportal/0egyptintro/2aegypt/ <-------- Egyptian History.

However, the romans did use archers, they just didn't fear them much.

Then again, perhaps the arrow and/or arrowhead technology of the time simply couldn't penetrate the Romans' Lorica Hamata.

Since archery wasn't a particularly effective weapon with regards destroying whole armies, in battle it was used more to tie down opposing enemy units. This prevented them from organising properly for an assault of their own and allowed your army to catch up to them. At least in theory anyway. At the end of the day the amount of advantage you gained depended greatly on the discipline and training of the enemy.

A more usual use for archers would probably have been as guards or in ambushes since bows and arrows would be much more useful than spears in this situation. Enemies probably wouldn't be in quite so tight a defensive formation in these cases and could be despatched quicker and with greater accuracy.

Inkwell, I'll concede the point that Marc Antony's failed invasion of Parthia is a good example of the Romans being beaten by hit-and-run tactics and the possible potential of missile-based warfare to defeat an army more concerned with bringing their opponents directly to bear in close combat. However, I'm not so sure Marc Antony was one of Rome's better generals though and I think the politics of the time also had a bearing. When they got serious about it under Trajan they managed well enough, although the Parthians were a fair bit weaker by then. In general terms I would expect most ancient armies to be able to hold out against another putting their faith mainly in missiles.

Survivor, chariots were pretty useful for moving people around the field of battle, but not employed so much as heavy cavalry. Not only were they expensive but they were not very good on broken ground, and because of a need to keep your driver (and maybe archer) safe you needed more men with shields, so they eventually ended up too big and unwieldy. It wasn't so much that they lost out to stirrups as it was that stirrups weren't actually necessary for heavy cavalry due to the saddle technology of the time.

The phalanx of the Greek cities was generally made up of farmer conscripts who got together purely for the purpose of war and then after battle returned home to their farms. Their armour consisted of a circular shield called a hoplon, which was certainly pretty heavy. It also formed up with the spears of the back ranks held up in the air with the idea of disrupting missile fire. Being an army formed of conscripts though it was liable to break and its members flee early on in battle in the enemy gained the psychological advantage. A trained, professional army was by far superior which was why the Spartans were so dominant in Greece and gained the reputation they did. It is perhaps telling that the Spartan decline coincides with the tendency of other Greek states to adopt professional armies (although there are a lot of other reasons too).

Franc li, I think the story you are remembering might rather be the one found in Plutarch's Life of Lykourgos and the Lakedaimonian Institutes that are usually lumped in with his Moralia, and which refers to the courage (read foolhardiness) of a Spartan boy who had stolen the fox. The slightly fuller version is found in the Lakedaimonian Institutes but I couldn't find an online translation of that. Plutarch gets to the tale about two thirds of the way down the page.

*Sniff*

I prefer the run-on 'college student with too much time on his hands...who also knows a little bit about a lot of things, but not a lot about the little things that are probably more important.'

If a commander had a limited knowledge of the basic rules of magic and was fearful that their enemy may use it against him, wouldn't he modify his tactics to suit? His general strategy may remain the same but his tactics would change. How effective can platemail be against chain lightning magic?

Simplistic example: if all you knew about an enemy mage was that he could only cast a spell upon those he could see, then you would hide, camouflage, attack at night or send in a spy to blind the mage. You may decide to hit and run in a forest or some other environment with lots of cover.

Of course you could talk about offensive versus defensive magic, but what commander would not get frustrated having to employ valuable magic personel and resources in defense rather than in a more vigorous attack. If it were me I would rather use natural defences as much as possible and save my own magic for striking at the enemy's weaknesses.

To my mind the existence of effective combat magic would be likely to discourage large scale battles. It would be a bit like trying to wage an effective war against someone with unknown technology. You wouldn't want to gather in large groups--just in case.

Anyway, the gist is: For Brinestone to make this world convincing she has to lay down the rules for magic and how that magic effects the way nations wage war.

Just my two credits worth.

1. No wizard may harm any other person, wizard, or animal in the world directly. That means all wizards are vegetarians.

2. Because wizards are kind to the earth, the earth bends to their will. They may move, shape, or use any natural feature (hills, bodies of water, dirt, etc.) so long as it doesn't contradict rule #1.

3. Because wizards are kind to the earth, the earth protects them from harm. They do not feel cold, and weapons cannot reach them (there's a loophole to this, which they realize later, unfortunately).

quote:

---

For Brinestone to make this world convincing she has to lay down the rules for magic and how that magic effects the way nations wage war.

---

quote:

---

For anyone to make a convincing world that contains both magic and warfare, they have to lay down the rules for magic and how it effects the way nations wage war.

---

I hope you see that I wasn't meaning to sound personal.