Why are bows whether long-, short-, or composite considered martial weapons? Particularly since, the oldest known evidence of the bow and arrow comes from South African sites such as Sibudu Cave, where likely arrowheads have been found, dating from approximately 72,000–60,000 years ago. The earliest probable arrowheads found outside of Africa were discovered in 2020 in Fa Hien Cave, Sri Lanka. Initially made for hunting. Where as the crossbow was 1st made only about 2500 years ago. Specifically for warfare. That tells me that long- and shortbows at least should be considered simple not martial. I'm sure the basic reasoning his that in the middle ages it became a knight class weapon and the crossbow was intended for the foot soldiers. Still tells me crossbow is a martial weapon not a simple weapon. Even historically speaking throughout most of Europe the crossbow was the preferred military weapon over the longbow.
The problem being due to the complexity of maintaining the crossbow and cost I'm finding until the last 50 years the crossbow had really only seen military use historically speaking. Whereas the longbow saw use both in hunting as well as military use and was far easier for the average woodsman to construct. I'm just saying that the noncomposite bows should fall in the simple weapon category since it saw way more nonmilitary use than the crossbow.
And lets face the crossbow is far more effective backed with military discipline and coordinated training. Nevermind the sheer amount of weapon maintenance required. I put forth this historical reference:
Through the 12th Century, crossbows were a more popular weapon than longbows in all European armies except England’s. Since crossbows were more complicated and expensive to produce, crossbowmen held prestigious rank in the military and were usually paid well. A crossbow commander was one of the most important military roles in the Spanish, French and Italian armies. Crossbowmen required an entire support team to help with maintenance and cocking the powerful weapon.
Despite considerable competition from the longbow, crossbows remained in use in Europe until the end of the Medieval period and the popularization of firearms. Hernán Cortés, the Spanish conquistador, even used crossbows in his conquest of the Aztecs in Mexico in 1521. During this 500-year span, crossbows were an essential part of any arsenal, a powerful weapon that could penetrate almost any armor that had been developed. They were so powerful in fact that at one point the Catholic Church tried to ban them.
In 5E longbows are martial weapons because they're not weapons most people can use with proficiency since they require more specialized training to use effectively than simple weapons generally found in the hands of commoners.
It feels like people haven't read the equipment list. The shortbow and light crossbow are simple weapons, the longbow, heavy crossbow and hand crossbow are martial.
With regards to bows this is pretty obvious why, hunting bows and those in common use would be shortbows, while longbows are fairly unweildy and require specific techniques to use correctly.
With regards to crossbows, light crossbows would be in relatively high use, while heavy crossbows are large and unwieldy, mostly only used for military formations. Hand crossbows are designed to be concealed and thus don't have the same features to ensure they don't destroy themselves, requiring more practice to make sure you don't break them.
The longbow used predominantly by the English in the Hundred Years War required archers trained from childhood, gradually increasing the weight of the bow they could bend. Bow staves recovered from the Mary Rose had draw weights of 130-150 lb. Skeletons of mediaeval archers had asymmetrical development of the arms. The advantage of the crossbow was the lower barrier to achieving proficiency with it. Proficiency with the longbow required the cultural and social infrastructure to support it.
I think a good comparison to make is to take this to an extreme and compare them both to guns. Even the most basic gun is quite a bit more complex of a machine than a medieval crossbow, and requires more complicated maintenance to work reliably long-term. However, in terms of just picking it up and using it, any idiot can grab a gun and more-or-less fire in the basic direction of a target.
Crossbows are in a similar situation... the thing that made them so desirable compared to traditional bows once they were invented was the fact that they don't require as much training to use competently. The hardest part about using a crossbow is just loading the damn thing. The game is still really generous about that... Crossbows were more of a group project thing in combat, since the idea of a single person firing two crossbow bolts in a 12 second space of time from the same crossbow is ridiculous. But if we're just handwaving that aspect of crossbow use for the sake of fun, then it's a lot easier to accept a Crossbow as simply requiring far less training to utilize efficiently compared to a longbow.
On the question of rate of fire, the Wikipedia article on the longbow states that six arrows per minute would rarely be exceeded (strain on the archer apparently). So, one shot per turn would be stretching things; four per turn is definitely into fantasy territory!
On the question of rate of fire, the Wikipedia article on the longbow states that six arrows per minute would rarely be exceeded (strain on the archer apparently). So, one shot per turn would be stretching things; four per turn is definitely into fantasy territory!
This could also be due in part to the massed fire tactics. A group of archers would draw and loose in unison, which necessarily means waiting a bit on commands. That said, rapid firing a 100lb draw weight bow would be impressive.
Most “primitive” cultures used bows, but, like he English longbow men they effectively trained in its use from childhood - same with the various steppe horse archers of history. These were martial peoples - hunters who used the bow daily. With agriculture we get a different group - peasants, who don’t hunt regularly and don’t train with weapons regularly (Shepard favored the sling as their goal was not hunting per se but driving off predators hunting their flocks.) the invention of the crossbow created a weapon that a peasant could be taught to use effectively in a matter of days (to a couple of weeks) rather than needing years. This is also why peasant levies were basically armed with spears and short swords and given shields - you could train them into something reasonably useful in combat quickly. (I’m talking peasant levies here not Greek and other heavy infantry formations - those did do large amounts of practice over years of training in order to make the heavy phalanx effective.) For hunting purposes as well as military you don’t need a near 200# pull bow. Something in the 50-100# pull range is plenty and these were found on the Mary Rose as well not just the high nd pull bows. Granted a 75# bow wasn’t going to drive it’s arrow through the best steel plate, it could still penetrate leather and chainmail with lethal affect. Fnally, firing speed- the English longbowman was expected to be able to fire at least 12 arrows in a minute. Could they do this all day? No, but for the 3-5 minutes of a foes charge? Yes- much like the WWI British “mad minute” with the lee e field rifle. It was a tactic to break up and stop a charge before it hit your lines. About 20 years ago I had the pleasure of watching a modern longbow expert at WarWick castle give a demonstration. First he had a chest sized target set up 100 yds away and fired 18 arrows into it in a timed minute. Then he replaced that target with a 6” tall thumb sized stick and fired at it 3 times hitting it all 3 times still in under a minute. A trained archer didn’t need to be rapid fire or have to fire at the armor given that he could hit an open eye slit or a bit of chainmail showing under the plate. It was the training not the weapon itself that mattered between a martial and a simple weapon.
The main reason is that’s where they fit for game balance reasons. D&D has never for a second tried to be historically accurate. It does try to make choices that make the game fair.
Better then to give heavier bows the heavy property.
I think the differentiation is fairly arbitrary and, if anything, the sickle may have been a more challenging weapon to wield. A similar standard of skill with intuitive and typically balanced weapons like spears or swords could be developed with relative ease.
Better then to give heavier bows the heavy property.
I think the differentiation is fairly arbitrary and, if anything, the sickle may have been a more challenging weapon to wield. A similar standard of skill with intuitive and typically balanced weapons like spears or swords could be developed with relative ease.
A sickle may be more challenging to use, but someone that's not in the military is more likely to be able to use it well than a longbow.
Also, the longbow is already heavy, which is more about it's size than the actual amount of force needed. A longbow is already nearly at the ground and above the head of a medium creature, a small creature would be hard pressed to use one effectively.
Like the bow, the sword is, in fact, not an easy weapon to wield properly. Yes any idiot can pick one up and flail around and maybe even chop or stab someone else that isn’t proficient ( maybe even someone that is occasionally) but to gain real skill calls for years of practice. Hence the variety of fencing schools and styles, the range of sword types and the years long training of knights, warriors and men at arms. (And modern Olympic fencers). The sickle was a peasant tool for cutting grain, you took it out at harvest time and grabbed a bunch of defenseless grain stalks the sliced them free (below your hand hopefully). After about 6 weeks work harvesting he grain the sickle went back into the tool shed til next year. You didn get it out and spend 2-8 hours practicing with it at least 3 days a week like you did with the sword if you were a warrior. Martial weapons are those that the warrior classes of “civilized” cultures used (or that the adults of “primitive” hunter groups used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why are bows whether long-, short-, or composite considered martial weapons? Particularly since, the oldest known evidence of the bow and arrow comes from South African sites such as Sibudu Cave, where likely arrowheads have been found, dating from approximately 72,000–60,000 years ago. The earliest probable arrowheads found outside of Africa were discovered in 2020 in Fa Hien Cave, Sri Lanka. Initially made for hunting. Where as the crossbow was 1st made only about 2500 years ago. Specifically for warfare. That tells me that long- and shortbows at least should be considered simple not martial. I'm sure the basic reasoning his that in the middle ages it became a knight class weapon and the crossbow was intended for the foot soldiers. Still tells me crossbow is a martial weapon not a simple weapon. Even historically speaking throughout most of Europe the crossbow was the preferred military weapon over the longbow.
The problem being due to the complexity of maintaining the crossbow and cost I'm finding until the last 50 years the crossbow had really only seen military use historically speaking. Whereas the longbow saw use both in hunting as well as military use and was far easier for the average woodsman to construct. I'm just saying that the noncomposite bows should fall in the simple weapon category since it saw way more nonmilitary use than the crossbow.
And lets face the crossbow is far more effective backed with military discipline and coordinated training. Nevermind the sheer amount of weapon maintenance required. I put forth this historical reference:
Through the 12th Century, crossbows were a more popular weapon than longbows in all European armies except England’s. Since crossbows were more complicated and expensive to produce, crossbowmen held prestigious rank in the military and were usually paid well. A crossbow commander was one of the most important military roles in the Spanish, French and Italian armies. Crossbowmen required an entire support team to help with maintenance and cocking the powerful weapon.
Despite considerable competition from the longbow, crossbows remained in use in Europe until the end of the Medieval period and the popularization of firearms. Hernán Cortés, the Spanish conquistador, even used crossbows in his conquest of the Aztecs in Mexico in 1521. During this 500-year span, crossbows were an essential part of any arsenal, a powerful weapon that could penetrate almost any armor that had been developed. They were so powerful in fact that at one point the Catholic Church tried to ban them.
In 5E longbows are martial weapons because they're not weapons most people can use with proficiency since they require more specialized training to use effectively than simple weapons generally found in the hands of commoners.
It feels like people haven't read the equipment list. The shortbow and light crossbow are simple weapons, the longbow, heavy crossbow and hand crossbow are martial.
With regards to bows this is pretty obvious why, hunting bows and those in common use would be shortbows, while longbows are fairly unweildy and require specific techniques to use correctly.
With regards to crossbows, light crossbows would be in relatively high use, while heavy crossbows are large and unwieldy, mostly only used for military formations. Hand crossbows are designed to be concealed and thus don't have the same features to ensure they don't destroy themselves, requiring more practice to make sure you don't break them.
The longbow used predominantly by the English in the Hundred Years War required archers trained from childhood, gradually increasing the weight of the bow they could bend. Bow staves recovered from the Mary Rose had draw weights of 130-150 lb. Skeletons of mediaeval archers had asymmetrical development of the arms. The advantage of the crossbow was the lower barrier to achieving proficiency with it. Proficiency with the longbow required the cultural and social infrastructure to support it.
Definitely a martial weapon.
I think a good comparison to make is to take this to an extreme and compare them both to guns. Even the most basic gun is quite a bit more complex of a machine than a medieval crossbow, and requires more complicated maintenance to work reliably long-term. However, in terms of just picking it up and using it, any idiot can grab a gun and more-or-less fire in the basic direction of a target.
Crossbows are in a similar situation... the thing that made them so desirable compared to traditional bows once they were invented was the fact that they don't require as much training to use competently. The hardest part about using a crossbow is just loading the damn thing. The game is still really generous about that... Crossbows were more of a group project thing in combat, since the idea of a single person firing two crossbow bolts in a 12 second space of time from the same crossbow is ridiculous. But if we're just handwaving that aspect of crossbow use for the sake of fun, then it's a lot easier to accept a Crossbow as simply requiring far less training to utilize efficiently compared to a longbow.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
On the question of rate of fire, the Wikipedia article on the longbow states that six arrows per minute would rarely be exceeded (strain on the archer apparently). So, one shot per turn would be stretching things; four per turn is definitely into fantasy territory!
This could also be due in part to the massed fire tactics. A group of archers would draw and loose in unison, which necessarily means waiting a bit on commands. That said, rapid firing a 100lb draw weight bow would be impressive.
Most “primitive” cultures used bows, but, like he English longbow men they effectively trained in its use from childhood - same with the various steppe horse archers of history. These were martial peoples - hunters who used the bow daily. With agriculture we get a different group - peasants, who don’t hunt regularly and don’t train with weapons regularly (Shepard favored the sling as their goal was not hunting per se but driving off predators hunting their flocks.) the invention of the crossbow created a weapon that a peasant could be taught to use effectively in a matter of days (to a couple of weeks) rather than needing years. This is also why peasant levies were basically armed with spears and short swords and given shields - you could train them into something reasonably useful in combat quickly. (I’m talking peasant levies here not Greek and other heavy infantry formations - those did do large amounts of practice over years of training in order to make the heavy phalanx effective.)
For hunting purposes as well as military you don’t need a near 200# pull bow. Something in the 50-100# pull range is plenty and these were found on the Mary Rose as well not just the high nd pull bows. Granted a 75# bow wasn’t going to drive it’s arrow through the best steel plate, it could still penetrate leather and chainmail with lethal affect.
Fnally, firing speed- the English longbowman was expected to be able to fire at least 12 arrows in a minute. Could they do this all day? No, but for the 3-5 minutes of a foes charge? Yes- much like the WWI British “mad minute” with the lee e field rifle. It was a tactic to break up and stop a charge before it hit your lines. About 20 years ago I had the pleasure of watching a modern longbow expert at WarWick castle give a demonstration. First he had a chest sized target set up 100 yds away and fired 18 arrows into it in a timed minute. Then he replaced that target with a 6” tall thumb sized stick and fired at it 3 times hitting it all 3 times still in under a minute. A trained archer didn’t need to be rapid fire or have to fire at the armor given that he could hit an open eye slit or a bit of chainmail showing under the plate. It was the training not the weapon itself that mattered between a martial and a simple weapon.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The main reason is that’s where they fit for game balance reasons. D&D has never for a second tried to be historically accurate. It does try to make choices that make the game fair.
Martial items are those that are not a simple to use.
example shortbows are simple. anyone can pick one up and day one and use it. maybe not well
Longbows are heavier draw weight and require more time and training.
In this game similar in nature. anyone can use a simple weapon but requires more training to use a martial weapon.
Better then to give heavier bows the heavy property.
I think the differentiation is fairly arbitrary and, if anything, the sickle may have been a more challenging weapon to wield. A similar standard of skill with intuitive and typically balanced weapons like spears or swords could be developed with relative ease.
A sickle may be more challenging to use, but someone that's not in the military is more likely to be able to use it well than a longbow.
Also, the longbow is already heavy, which is more about it's size than the actual amount of force needed. A longbow is already nearly at the ground and above the head of a medium creature, a small creature would be hard pressed to use one effectively.
Like the bow, the sword is, in fact, not an easy weapon to wield properly. Yes any idiot can pick one up and flail around and maybe even chop or stab someone else that isn’t proficient ( maybe even someone that is occasionally) but to gain real skill calls for years of practice. Hence the variety of fencing schools and styles, the range of sword types and the years long training of knights, warriors and men at arms. (And modern Olympic fencers). The sickle was a peasant tool for cutting grain, you took it out at harvest time and grabbed a bunch of defenseless grain stalks the sliced them free (below your hand hopefully). After about 6 weeks work harvesting he grain the sickle went back into the tool shed til next year. You didn get it out and spend 2-8 hours practicing with it at least 3 days a week like you did with the sword if you were a warrior.
Martial weapons are those that the warrior classes of “civilized” cultures used (or that the adults of “primitive” hunter groups used.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.