Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/crossbow.htm
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/longbow.htm

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval...oss_l_v_c.html

Particularly the piece at the end. It appears there was much development with regards to the crossbow during the medieval period.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yes. Particularly in bow material. You had probably heard about metal bows - which only became widespread in 15-16th centuries. Earliest devices had mostly plain wooden bows. At Crusades' era they were mostly composite.
As for actual arrow weight - I wonder. From what I heard crossbow bolts were often considerably heavier. But this may be mostly the case with late models - those with metal bows. Thanks for the source anyway.
Considering slings I've already mentioned that even at Tamerlane's times their use continued and was quite effective. Of course, they were even harder to learn than bows...

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You guys don't seem to get the physics.

The bow material is IRRELEVANT. If you make a bow of styrofoam and it requires a 150 lb draw at 12 inches draw pull at 24" bow width it's the same as a titanium bow with the same characteristics.

Because, fundamentally it's a human being drawing the bow. And a human being has a limited amount of reach and pull. So all things being equal, a human with 150 lbs of pull at 28 inches of draw will put MORE energy into an arrow or bolt with a longer total bow length. So if a human could draw a 12 foot long bow at 150 lbs and 28 inches it would have far more penetration than any 4 foot tall bow at the same draw and length.

Material is irrelevant. If we are talking about machine powered draw and unlimited time to draw then compounding by mechanical advantage comes into play.

Of course, if you want to debate this I'm most happy. Of course you realize I will win.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Oh yeah. This is basic conservation of energy. The input energy is a human being. The variation is not that large.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Crossbows use a mechanical advantage to pull back the string. Even the ancient crossbows seem to have higher kinetic energy, because of larger projectiles but has a slower projectile speed. So, theoretically, they could penetrate armor better.

I've learned a bit since this discussion started. The problem appears to be that both bows did what they were designed for well. Both pierced armor, and if the longbow didn't, they would just use different arrows. In the time period prior to 1500-1600 or so and maybe after that longbows outdistanced crossbows considerably... although, it appears that even this may have been largely due to crossbow users being essentially unskilled archers.

The lesson seems to be that you need several times as many similarly skilled crossbows to be as effective as longbows would be. Because crossbow archers were frequently unskilled, you would need many more, and even then you might have, at least, range problems.

And range problems in such situations are pretty severe and can have telling consequences.

And also, regarding the Catholic Church 'banning' the crossbow, it seems that many people think that was a law regarding dangerous shooting exhibitions. As I don't have a copy of the law (and couldn't probably read it if I did), I can't give an actual opinion as to the nature of its intention... So, I assume it was a common law designed to keep reasonable and decent order.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Styrofoam is very light. So a 150lb draw styrofoam bow would only actually be about 15lb. Clearly you did not understand anything at all we were talking about on IRC. I thought you engineering types studied physics in school. Not just beaver dams. Titanium on the other hand is really heavy, so a 150lb draw titantium bow would be about 400lbs actually.

What are you, some kind of troll? You are clearly racist against the Vaetti.

Gah! There you go again. You are totally ignoring the material used in the bow construction. How can you keep making this basic mistake, ignoring composites, and plastics, and steel bows, or, more importantly, plasteel Xbows? Don't you know 'X' stands for "extra"?

Sounds to me like you've been drinking! You're not gonna win anything that way, except maybe a beer belly.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Admin, please lock this thread. If I knew how to do so, I would do it myself. It has long outlived it's usefullness.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Trolls have every right to be racist against vaetti. Besides, I hear that vaetti make good eatin' (if you're a troll.)

...oh, and you could stick the little vaetti skull on the end of your Troll-size crossbow, and it would look real intimidating or something. If you hang a vaetti skull on your bow, it just kinda dangles there looking silly, plus it throws off your aim as it waves back and forth.

Therefore, Crossbows > Longbows, if you're a troll. On the other hand, Longbows > Crossbows, if you're a vaetti.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

actually Maerlande, the material is very relevant... not only does it affect the weight of the bow but also its elastic ability. the more elastic the material the less force the archer needs to use in order to pull the bow, or give you more pulling effect for the same energy. yes that would be limited by the archer's arms length too, which is why you need a balance between weight and elastic ability. oh and if you use metals or something that isn't elastic at all than a strong enough pull might just break the bow due to its lack of elastic ability...