"Effectiveness of the Indian Longbow?" Topic

Many of the foot soldiers in the Indian army that fought Alexander at the Hydaspes were armed with bamboo longbows. In most rules these are grouped with English longbows. However, I suspect that massed English longbowmen would have decimated a phalanx.

Do we know anything abut the relative effectiveness of the weapons?

Most regular troops could carry on despite decimation. 10% loss hurts, but doesn't defeat.

Duncan Head in 'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars', describes the Indian bow as "a long, heavy, powerful weapon" and quotes Arrian who says no shield or cuirass could stop its arrows. However, other contemporary observers suggested that the bow was too heavy to be accurately aimed and say that it had to be braced with the left foot when shooting. Head, however, suggests that this is a misunderstanding and believes that this refers to the bow being strung rather than shot.

Head also suggests that the seeming ineffectiveness of the Indian bowman against the phalanx at Hydaspes might conceivably be because they were still deploying and stringing their bows when the Macedonian attack started. (And you never know, it might have been raining, which I believe would have impaired the effectiveness of the bows – but that's just an idea off the top of my head and I have no evidence for that!)

Edit: I just looked up the wiki page for Hydaspes: link and it took place in the monsoon season the night after a storm so maybe damp bow strings isn't such a daft idea after all.

Hi SJD, yes the weather could have played a part, someone (Duncan?) conjectured that mud underfoot might have made it hard to string the bows.

I suppose I was wondering whether anyone had reconstructed an Indian bow and tested its properties (although perhaps we don't know enough about them to do that?). We also don't know how well trained the Indians were; whether they trained from childhood like the British archers, and developed the appropriate muscles and bone structure.

Cheers, Simon

Various websites suggest they were made of bamboo laminate, very heavy and inaccurate.

Can't find anything on how the bow was used.

The big downside was length of time spent on construction. Can't find anything on the methods used for construction so I assume construction time could be either skilled labour availability or drying times etc of the laminate.

No mention of arrowhead design but one site does mention metal shafted arrows for use against elephants…

To me the power of the longbow is different than the killing ability of mass troops.

For examplethe Native Americans of the Mississippi Valley/ South used a bamboo longbow and fire harden arrow tips. In DeSoto reports that one of his men was wounded by such an arrow. The power of the arrow is shown by the fact that the arrow went through the soldier's leg, completely penetrated the wood saddle and blanket and went far enough into the horse to kill it.
'Texas' tribes used a 6-foot longbow to kill buffalo which are well known for their ultra thick hide.

This example shows the killing power of a bamboo longbow. So add this to the Mass Classic Indian formations and you have a powerful weapon.

I wonder if it would be possible to find a traditional bowyer about this. I'm super-curious about it.

Interesting comment on the weather….

Bows are hampered by being wet, especially the bow strings which tend to stretch when wet.

I have often wondered why the Longbow was such a favored weapon in a "jungle" environment? I mean I have no knowledge of the environment, but I always imagined the bow would have been limited also by the jungle foliage? Then again the phalanx would have been equally hampered?

Now if we are talking canopy with less dense terrain underneath, the bow range would be impacted, but the troops could still form underneath the trees?

Just curious does anyone know much about ancient Indian terrain for these battles?

I have Indian armies which rely heavily on Chariots and Bows, neither of these seem to me to be idea jungle weapons.

Didn't someone do a practical test that showed the pikes in formation disrupted the flight of most of the arrows and protected the formation rather well? Once again, sucks to be in front, I would think.

We also don't know how well trained the Indians were; whether they trained from childhood like the British archers, and developed the appropriate muscles and bone structure.

They were a hereditary warrior caste, not levies, and that was their weapon. Now does that mean they were well trained?

I can't say

I have often wondered why the Longbow was such a favored weapon in a "jungle" environment?

India is not a jungle in the main.

From my limited knowledge, Indian foot archers don't seem to have particularly distinguished themselves against later invaders either. This might suggest their weakness at Hydaspes wasn't just due to bad luck with the weather.

India is not a jungle in the main.

I have wondered about this, because I think of it as tropical rainforest. I mean I know there are parts in the North which are obviously not, but for the "Classical Indian" army I always think jungle…

Never been there to see for myself though :(

You've been watching the "Jungle Book" too much!

(I'm the king of the swingers, a jungle VIP………)

The Indian Longbow is usually over rated in gaming.

Obviously there is absolutely no scientific way of comparing these two troop types. From doctrine to tactics and equipment or numbers there is no way to make a comparison.

At short trajectory the bow anecdotally delivers an armor penetrating punch, but just about any arrow that misses the armor and hits the joints can do this. Most games are affected by the long range bow fire that seems to dominate table top games and dictates action. Short range enhancement seems ok for the front rankers, but whole units get the bonuses in games.

I prefer to believe that doctrine had more important issues for the Indian bowman that limited effectveness. First off they do not seem to have operated in dispersed units, so the only flat trajectory fire comes from the front. Secondly it seems that units were composed of spearmen and archers, and that the archers may have moved out forward then fired and retired, keeping up a harassing fire rather than the kind of massed volley fire that English longbows are represented with in games. To make matter worse they were part of a rigid stratified world, where attacking the lords was mostly frowned on , and units had no discipline against chariot charges, and no weapons to deal with elephants… so in effect they were relegated to a support role. Even Megasthenes notes they were loath to close to hand to hand combat preferring the elephants and chariots and cavalry did all the decision making.

Because of these factors I prefer that Indian bowmen be regarded as just regular bowmen. If you play games with these conditions suddenly the results fit the pattern more.

But sadly the wargames community often prefers the perception rather than a real result and thus Indian armies become shooty fortresses buttressed by elephants and probably too effective chariots as well… this is exascerbated by sources based on mythological sources and often some biased overreaching modern Indian commentators who tend to exaggerate their own martial arts feats (just as we get the super human ninjas and samurai, there are super human bow shooters that fly etc. in Indian armies). These exaggerations don't apply to the normal "poor bloody infantryman", just as super samurai feats don't belong to the lowly naginata…

That's my observation over time. I will note that when the WAB lists are built with regular bows they act more like I would expect an Indian army to act, instead of the elephants supporting a massed firing line with over-watch artillery fire they actually move… as do the chariots… wow movement from an Indian army.. makes me regret ever sucking up and kow-towing to the mob on my lists….

I have travelled quite a bit in India. Very little of what I saw was unsuitable for archery (in fact, in the cool season, much of the north looks rather like Kent!); where there is dense forest, there's not much to fight over and not much of a population base to support armies, anyway.

Hi JJ,

Thanks for this. It's interesting for me because I've not encountered Indians in WAB (or indeed any other rules since WRG 5 or so).

From your description of their battlefield role, it doesn't sound like the Indian archers would be able to put out the same volume of fire as their medieval English equivalents. Reading your description of their reluctance to engage in hand-to-hand combat, I find myself wondering how capable they would be able to stand against a phalanx, either.

Although noting your comment about the lack of evidence for them fighting in a dispersed manner, I do wonder whether the infantry might be modelled on the table as a screen of LI archers deployed (initially) in front of a line of spearmen; these, being less numerous, could be given longer range bows, with greater penetration, without unduly unbalancing a game.

The alternative would appear to be to model them as formed archers but lacking uber bows, as you suggest.

I'd not heard of Megasthenes, I shall read that post-haste! I like his description of a hereditary military class, as Dragon6 mentions, but which "gives itself up to idleness and amusement in the times of peace".

"Super human bow shooters that fly" sounds very much like Hordes of the Things! ;-)

Best, Simon

Sobieski, thanks.. very interesting. As someone mentioned above, images of The Jungle Book do come to mind which makes no sense to me when I think about Chariots, massed Cavalry and Bow.

Will have to search some images.

The bow is made of bamboo, I suggest that it does not have the same elasticity as a longbow, but is rather like the Welsh bows described by Giraldus Cambrensis. These are very powerful but short ranged. That would fit with the description of their penetration, but explain why they are not very effective against massed targets that close quickly.

Thanks all, useful stuff. I shall read everything I can find… at the moment I'm inclined to give them a normal bow range but more penetration.

Best, Simon