Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Ah, trolltastic!

Yes, quite right. There's all of one other post agreeing from my quick check, for the grand total of two, out of all posters in this topic. And yet you've started a huge rant about longbow fanboys. You might want to check the prevailing arguments, not go off half-cocked about one comment.

I will quickly pop through the traces of intellectual meat to your last post: your waffle about various battles isn't really relevant, for the obvious reasons like morale, surprise attacks, tactics and so on also applying. re. longbow costs, "lowest bidder" rules applied then as now, I suspect. I note you consistently avoided my points on the different draw weight of Welsh/English war longbows compared other bows and longbows. Ho hum.

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

I think you have an emotional investment in being anti-longbow, which explains your attitude and your exhaustive yet very factually and logically limited two posts. Everyone else here is very calm about it all.

Wow. I guess then a gun is a gun is a gun. Musket, assault rifle, shotgun, what's the difference?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

A missile is a missile.

I'll stick with ICBMs, thank you very much.


:sucks:

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Are you guys really going to sit here and argue about the definition of the word "fire"? It is fairly obvious what was meant by the term fire, and using historically correct terminology to describe the action of firing/shooting/loosing/releasing/flinging/beatingwithastick an arrow is fairly irrelevant to the conversation and understanding what is being said in this thread. One might even argue that it would be more correct to use more modern terminology as it would be more readily understood in common conversation. So please, go back to flaming each other for slightly less silly reasons.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Since obviously all bows are the same, I completely see your point now. I made bows out of switchgrass and kite string when I was a kid, and man did they SUCK, erego the longbow must be awful. It couldn't kill a man at 10 feet, unarmored!

I was under the impression that the attraction of the -Long Bow- was the incredible distance that it could be fired. You did use them en mass, and because of arced volley fire, you did not actually aim, you just lobbed as many arrows at someone as possible, before they were close enough to even do anything about it.

The crossbow on the other hand, was probably more effective, in its own effective range. However, with a lower rate of fire, you are relying more on intentionally aimed shots, and thus you must be in range to fire directly, rather than using arced volleys.


Honestly, mister Gun, I do believe that you are such a rabid protector of the honor of the crossbow, for the simple fact that it is almost a gun - and therefore must be superior to the barbaric weapons that existed previously.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think we should tone down the namecalling/flaming on either side because I actually find the discussion otherwise, pretty nifty. =)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yeah, I agree. I kind of wish I had never started the thread, but I have learned some history lessons. And, I have changed my mind. Longbows should not be AP. Except perhaps for some special units.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.


I was making a general statement because I didn't want to go off on specific people to cut down on the mass quoting (at the start anyway). I wrote something to that effect and there's other points too that I'll bring up as the come up so my huge rant is in totally even more huge than the one you see now.

Then your statement of the bows being "battle winning" is therefore overally ambitious and somewhat deceptive and I don't know why you are getting angry at me for? Have you not essentially admit you were in the wrong here? I'm sorry I don't get your meaning.

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

The lowest bidder rule doesn't apply because you talking about a royal decree and not a modern capitalistic democracy.

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong? :D

Well you certainly seem to be calm right now. I'm perfectly monk-like over here myself. Well maybe one of those twinkly eyed mischevious monks but pretty monk-like overall.


Well, I believe you have selectively quoted there and misunderstood me. A longbow by itself tells you nothing. A 20 pound draw longbow isn't the same as a 100 pound plus composite bow to give an obvious example. I did say that there some characteristics that define it. An example is that the longer bow is easier on your limbs because of reduced hand shock. But the nature of the bow is the same in that you are using limbs as a spring to launch a missle and is human powered. Your example is incorrect because guns can differ in principle mechanically. The longbow get's nothing that makes it better just by being a longbow.

@JimMorrison:
I clarified what I wrote above. Arced volley shooting isn't a feature it is a necessity to gain distance. You cannot choose to arc because there is no varient way to draw a hand bow. You reminded me of an additional point

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Is anyone here actually arguing that strong bows aren't found everywhere? I don't recall that being the case.

Or that the person with the longbow is releasing the shot at a different angle to achieve a different trajectory and reach?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, for example, if you were at the Battle of Hastings, and you were told to shoot over the shield wall and ensure victory for the Normans, you'd be like, "Sorry dude, I can't arc."