What effect did rain have on various ancient / medieval bow types.
Could they still be used?

Wet bowstrings would over-stretch and not transfer energy efficiently from bow to arrow. The bows themselves were sensitive to moisture if they weren't laquered or protected from water in some other way. Composite bows that got soaked could delaminate. Self bows in the same condition would not store and return energy efficiently, if at all.

Was there effective lacquer or other protection against the water for bows

The Chinese laquered their bows, presumably for moisture protection. I think some ME bowyers used paint.

Trying to figure it out in a fantasy setting with non-magical bows

Well, there are your answers -- using biological glues and other materials, you have to be careful about water. Bows benefit from being painted or laquered (though self bows generally aren't) and should always be carried in a protective case or sleeve when not in use. Strings should only be strung when use is expected, and also have to be protected from moisture. (I think animal fat grease works for this, but don't quote me on it.)

I can't recall too much but I remember reading how the lousy weather in Europe was damaging to many composite bows, which is why Europeans did not adopt such weapons. It also caused problems for the Mongols and other invaders.

Do not forget another nasty non-magical weapon - the primitive MLRS Chinese and several others int hat region used That is the thing that always disappointed me about Gandalf, mage dealing with wonderful fireworks and he misses such a wonderful opportunity - after all he might have made pre-deployed caches of rockets in expected areas of conflict

I own a Korean traditional composite bow, which is very similar to gunpowder-era Chinese and Mongol bows. The instructions require that the bows be kept in a special heated box and strung most of the time. Now, the latter might sound weird, but the reason is that the composite elements in the forward section of the bow tend to shrink when dry. This makes the bow prone to cracking unless that part is always stretched. I was told that traditionally Korean archers would string their bows 8 hours a day even when there was no action to be expected. Stringing a composite bow (at least the Korean type) does not degrade it, contrary to popular belief, if the stringing is done right. There are several different lengths of bowstring used for the bow. The "upkeep" bowstring is longer than the "combat" bowstring and does not pre-load the bow as much. Of course, a bow constantly strung with the "combat" bowstring would lose its resistance over time, but the "upkeep" bowstring actually protects the bow.

The bow itself is lacquered with a black-reddish finish and very much moisture-proof. I've tested this by dropping beads of water on the surface of the bow. The beads stayed on form and just rolled off the surface. The glue used is made of fish, er, innards and does not degrade on contact with moisture unless you soak the bow deliberately. I was told, however, that the lacquered bow was a late innovation probably made in the 15th-16th century. Before that bows had a much rounder cross-section and what passed for lacquer was much cruder. Genghis Khan's Mongols probably didn't have moisture-proofed bows.

Medieval Europeans (English excluded) tended not to develop/deploy projectile weapons as the use of weapons was restricted to the upper classes. NOBODY wanted to give bows to peasants and any "warrior" who used his 'hunting' weapon on the battlefield was thought to lack testosterone-producing glands. It will be noted that accounts of Medieval battles have projectile weapons in the hands of mercenary troops hired for the occasion (cf Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy).

Weapons development revolves around social reasons as well as technical advances, and a lot of the social reasoning revolves around who is going to run the society. For example the development of gunpowder led to national armies as opposed to collections of baronial troops. Only the king could have the resources to buy weapons and especially gunpowder (which cost the purchasing equivalent of 10,000USD/pound in the 15th Century). Contrary to HBS, gunpowder did not "Make every peasant able to slay a knight" -- where is a peasant going to get an arquesbus and gunpowder to shoot the local baron? What it DID do was make effective weaponry (especially castle-busting cannon) so expensive that only a king could buy the weapons and then HE would recruit peasants to use the Royal weaponry, thus ending royal dependency on coalitions of barons.

The British system of a long-bow toting yeomanry developed because the British nobility (ie 'warrior class') was much smaller - like 10% of the numbers in France for example - and the British needed an equalizer. But the yeomanry's use of longbows did not make them Free Men™, because arrow production was done by Royal order. Can't have a Peasant Revolt if they don't have arrows, right?

While I forgot to mention them, I was also talking about the Romans, who to my knowledge did not use any composite bows.

I knew that outside of Britain during the middle ages bows were not used to a very large extent but I was unaware this social barrer was that much of the factor. Wouldn't the use of the crossbow become much more widespread durig the late middle ages however?

In regards to gunpowder, yeah the peasant would need to be supplied by the king but together with the pike it did shift the balance of power on the battlefield further away from the elite knights and calalry weakening the nobility as you have said.

Speaking of pikes was there any social reasons as to why it took so long for pikes and similar long polearms to become common on the battlefield in the face of heavily armored cavalry?

"Romans" cover a lot of time and ground. Some of the Byzantine cataphracts might have had composite bows. Also, most "Roman" archers were auxiliaries, and not that much is known about them, at least by me.

Crossbows are much more expensive and harder to produce and tend to come under the "supplied by monarch or military contractor" rule. Again, the rulers did not want new techology that threatened the existing order -- at least until the people overthrowing the existing social order were monarchs trying to build nation-states rather than try to control feudal mobs.

In 1347 a Pope pronounced crossbows to be anathema and excommunicated all crossbow users. Like most weapons control measures, it didn't work.


Once again, warfare was a sport of nobles, and they didn't WANT effective infantry -- it threatened their power. Note that the "Renaissance of Infantry" was led by rebelling Dutchmen and the monarchless Swiss. The Spanish took it and ran with it with their tercios, but I doubt they could have afforded it without the Crown being financed by American loot.

Practical reasons for slow development of polearms is that they are pretty useless in any context other than massed employment by large bodies of troops. They are also expensive (Try to find a good fifteen-foot piece of ash to make a pike) in a milieu where "infantry" are peasant levies armed with agricultural equipment. Once again, it took a pretty powerful monarch to afford to pay for blocks of pikemen. They couldn't just be slapped together.*


* It's "fantasy," but Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksennarion has a pretty good description of the training involved in getting good pike units.

And rebelling Hussites, though their use of infantry to counter knights was a tad different.

Doh. I was talking about the late republic and early empire. I believe the Byzantines made pretty good use of archers.

So for sieges and stuff the "professional" warriors (mostly anybody but the peasent mob right) were force to just deal with it and use a crossbow?

Sorry but I have not stuided medieval history or warefare in a long while.

They hired mercenary crossbowmen (northern Italians were considered the best quality) and relied on various siege engines and mining, done by professional captains managing levies.

The men at arms stood around looking heroic until the time for the final assault. They also provided security against premeptive sallies from inside the fort/castle/city.

Well, they were usually squatting around crapping their guts out with dysentery instead of looking noble, but essentially correct...

AFAIK the first mass users of Pikes were the Scots in the late 13th century with their shiltrons. The Swiss only broadly introduced Pikes in the late 15th century. Their main weapon during the prior 2 centuries was the halberd which grew out of the combination of a sicle combined with a spear. Ironically in one of the battles of the late 14th century between then Swiss and the Habsburgs, the Habsburg duke decided to dismount his knights and fight in a deep phalanx, using their lances as pikes. This had never been seen before in this area and this phalanx gave the unarmoured and outranged Swiss fits and a lot of trouble until they managed to make a breach.



Initially it was about not wanting to have any intermediate feudal lords between the local ones and the Emporer. It was only when the Habsburgs (who had been trying for a few generations to be those intermediate Feudal Lords) became hereditary Emporers of the HRE that the alliance became anti Empire as such. Aside from that the social structure was similar to that of the other areas in the Holy Roman Empire.

The Scots were more likely spear armed at the time. Pikes came along for them at about the same time they came along for the Swiss.

The Low Countries militia forces tended to use an infantry phalanx from the 13th Century as well. Basically anywhere that was too poor to support large numbers of mounted men resorted to massed foot soldiers.

Also it seems where the number of nobles was very low on one side, thus precluding a nobles only battle and making it necessary for peasants to be used to make up numbers.