[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Hmm, I didn't quite mean it that way. What I was trying to say that I think training an archer on a longbow as opposed to a compound bow would be better in the long run for the archer, because it would foster more the personal skill of the archer. With a compound bow you rely on a lot of crutches to maximize your accuracy. Sights on your bow that can and frequently do come loose from the force expended in firing. Special release triggers that could break in the middle of battle or get lost in a baggage train. All those niggling little things in that article you linked. Everything we do with the modern compound bow is to make the shot rely as little on the archer and as much on the bow as possible... which would make it very easy for everything to fall apart if something is misaligned. If you're just relying on yourself and you're used to relying on yourself, it's a lot easier to compensate than when you've not trained yourself how to. When everything is working properly with the compound bow you'll have great accuracy, but when things get misaligned you have to spend a significant amount of time retuning the equipment.

Again personal skill cannot overcome mechanical disadvantages because an archer does not control his arrow in mid flight. There is only so much he can do. And relying on mechanical aid is a good thing. A human being is more likely to be inconsistent than a misaligned machine because at least a misaligned machine is much more likely to be inconsistent the same way.

And I am somewhat doubtful that an archer would not know how his next shot would behave. That seems unlikely to me. While it is true that back then they didn't have the same kind of quality control that we did I am not so sure that some small imperfections in the crafting of the bow would have such a drastic effect on its accuracy. A bow made by some random peasant who's never made a bow before, sure, I'll agree it's probably not going to come out very well. But a bow made by someone who knows what they're doing, that's a bit different of a story. Besides, having used the bow for hours and hours of practice you would learn if your bow maybe shoots a bit to the left, or a bit high, etc. You would learn how to compensate for any small degree of imperfection. Or you would use the bow for firewood if it just can't shoot straight. Although really, I don't think there's a whole lot that can go terribly wrong in the making of the bow itself... it would seem to me that their biggest problem hundreds of years ago would be in the bowstring.

Is a soldier going to be able to keep the same bow he has on the field and "forever?" Is the soldier going sure of the quality of the arrows? Even if the soldier had the same bow and we were assured it's quality was constant so he could "get use to it" he couldn't be sure of the quality of his arrows and if you admit variances within the bow then you know that the arrows themselves cannot be truly right for it. To truly know how your bow "behaves" you have to assume that arrows were a constant quality which you yourself admit that would be problematic in the paragraph after this one.

I still think you overestimate just how hard it is to fire a bow properly . The difference between a perfect shot and a middling-good shot (which is most of what you should be getting in battlefield conditions at moderate range, I think), is with the perfect shot you hit the guy in the middle of the torso. With the middling shot you might hit him in the arm, stomach, or maybe a leg. With a very poor shot, you'll go over his head, hit the ground in front of him, or the arrow will fly off to a side... and two of those shots still have a chance to hit someone else. Plus if you're shooting into a packed mass of soldiers like at agincourt it would be hard to miss completely and not hit anyone at all. And at least while you're not being shot at and people aren't close enough to stab you, it should not be too hard to fire properly. Taking the example of the bike in a battlefield... are you going to forget how to ride? Maybe you'll exaggerate some of the motions. Maybe with all the adrenaline you'll fall off trying to ride away while someone's shooting in your general direction. But then you'll get back on the bike and keep on peddling. I will freely admit there's more chance of human error with a bow, and less ease of profile minimalization. Those are unfortunate drawbacks to the weapon.

And wouldn't you say a bike relies a lot on "mechanical aid?" Such that the level of inputs you put in to get a bike to work is much less than one you need to get a bow to "work." I think you are underestimating the raw fear that a battlefield instills in somebody. A musket is considered an easy to use weapon but there are plenty of instances where weapons have been found with multiple loads in them due to panic.

Also you assume that a missed arrow that still hits somebody is the same quality of one that hits an intended target directly. The very nature of how an arrow leaves the bow has a great effect on its character. I think your assumption that the arrow wouldn't vary that much is too optimistic and the implication that an "off" arrow is just as good as a direct arrow is too ambitious as well. The rush and panic to pump out arrows is likely to mean that the archers aren't pulling as far as they need to leading to significant veering and falling short.

Depends where, probably not but depends on how sick, probably because you train to pull the bow back to the same spot every time, and if you were too scared to do that you'd probably be running for dear life . Let's reverse that, crossbows have a higher draw weight per bow strength than an ordinary bow has, and required mechanical means to draw them. Could a crossbowman draw his crossbow when sick, wounded, or scared out of his mind? I would guess the answers are pretty similar to mine for the longbow actually, though I admit to never having fired a crossbow, particularly a medieval crossbow.

Being sick and sapped for strength would make the elbow grease required to load a crossbow problematic yes, but crossbows have periods of rest (when it's loaded) to help compensate. Since the range of motion required is not as involved you are more likely to be able to load it compared to drawing and shooting a bow and since you cannot screw up form since the string must be pulled to the nut (same spot) unlike a longbow which relies on the archer. The less things a human can screw up the better.

Originally Posted by Gregstorm

This is an assumption I just plain disagree with. It is patronising at the very least to assume that because medieval craftsmen lacked modern technology they couldn't work wood to a high standard.

High standard compared to what? How could a medieval craftsmen compete with new materials made with computer modeling? How is that notion patronizing? And again the major issue here is consistency. Even if they were high standard were they all the same kind of standard? The arrow and the bow are simply too dependent upon one another. And even if you could achieve perfection you notice the bending of the arrow along it's node points prevent a truly exact hit because of it's inherent buckling and the flopping of the head of the arrow makes it much less likely for a truly direct contact.

Again I dipute this blanket assumption that medieval skills couldn't make an arrow tht would fly true.

I will agree, though, that goods mass produced for the military were likely to be substandard. As noted elsewhere, though, it may well be the case that battlefield longbow use was more about hitting an area reliably than about precision targetting of individuals. In which case the point is more or less moot.

Your assertion only works if getting it into that area is a given and it simply isn't. And a cohesive volley is more effective and you don't get that without "precision."

I believe that's down to training, in much the same way as modern armies do it. Since military training was being done pretty darn well by the 1st century BC, I don't think this argument holds very much water.

The problem with this statement is that more modern armies with "slow easy to use weapons," the imperialistic powers with their guns tore indigenous populations using the old school a new one. Your argument would only hold water if the quality of these old school armies like India with it's longbows would be smacking around those powers using that old timey shooty magic. I don't see what your saying holding water unless a delorean full of Uzis is involved.

Ooh, sounds a bit like an assembly line. You know, one of those manufacturing techniques that reduces cost due to increased efficiency? (not that crossbows wouldn't still be expensive, of course)
Please note: the guy you're quoting specified that the costs he mentioned weren't financial but the availability of trained men and speed of bow manufacture.

Well he says otherwise in a later post LOL. But anyway an assembly line cannot be compared to individual dedicated craftsmen. Regular bows were easier to pump out I mean a lot of these composite crossbows used whale bone. Do you think it's easier to get a whale, kill it, remove it's whaley meats, get the bone, and craft the bone than to chop down a tree? Plus crossbows needed wood for that composite (yew) so you had to chop down tree too. I'm telling you no way in heck can crossbows be cheaper.

I do see one big advantage to feudal lords for the crossbow - most peasants aren't going to own them because of the price. Not having a workforce who can shoot you if they don't like your taxes is a Good Thing.

Unruly peasants were always a problem however, longbowmen were not true peasants but belonged to a class called Franklins. The whole longbowmen was a mere peasant thing fighting snooty nobles for FREEEEEDOOOOM is somewhat of a historical revisionism with a political axe to grind. The majority of true peasants were still quite screwed.

Originally Posted by Incabulos

heh you ask me we have lost plenty of knowledge from past ages in all aspects of art, construction and science and skill and craftsmanship has gone down.

Mass production has seen to that. Scientific undertanding of a subject does not = practical ability. And there are plenty of things that we cannot match the quality of today. from violins to swords to construction techniques. Architecture is probably the most striking example though.

Huh? Err you honestly don't think a sky scraper or a space station is more impressive and requires more practical ability than what they had in the middle ages? Scientific understanding is what refines and takes "practical ability" to new heights. And they can make carbon nanotube blades now I believe. If you had modern day sword guy vs. medieval sword guy assuming equal skill medieval sword guy would lose...badly. Even without the modern stuff the mere superior health of the modern guy would be enough. It is silly to think that some guy in medieval times can crank out a better bow than one produced with all the materials technology, computers, and techniques of today. Medieval craftsmen were not Mentats.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Dude. I made a fully functional crossbow, that would penetrate 2" of wood in 5th grade.

Radical? Cowabunga? What is this suppose to tell me again?

The "bow" part of the weapon is called a stock. And no, you don't need any particular bowyer skill.

No. The "bow" part as in the limbs were the magic shooty elves live is the prod or lath. The stock is called the tiller. You need bowyer skill as well as other folks. Also chicks dig guys with skills.

I think you have *no* general idea of the level of complexity that societies of the time were capable of generating. For example, looms of the times had up to ***10,000*** moving parts.
To think that societies couldn't crank out crossbows with 10-24 parts cheaply is .. simply laughable.

Looms come in many varieties like simple hand looms. You're making it sound like the 10,000 part uber loom is the norm for these peoples like a washing machine for the average peasant. Not to mention a loom is constantly producing a good recuperating its cost. A crossbow comes from a series of parts produced by dedicated craftsmen who want to be PAID and who need materials who are collected by people who also need to be paid and has to be made over and over again. And if you are judging parts as cost well how many "parts" does a regular bow have?

The reason looms were successful is the same reason that crossbows were successful. Large amounts of standardized parts could be cranked out, and assembled, quickly and cheaply.

Doesn't work like that in those days. You cannot compare dedicated medieval craftsmen to modern day assembly.

And yes, compared to knights, sappers, artillerymen, crossbowmen *were* cheap.

A knight of "gentle birth" is going to need money yes obviously but a sapper? And artilleryman as an "engineer" type or generic mook to carry and help assemble? LOL no. Crossbowmen were not cheap. Their wages were high and the weapon themselves ensure that.

Crossbowmen had essentially no need to train. These troops were often raised in mere weeks, vs. the years required to gain excellence with the longbow. Because they had virtually no training - they were easier to raise, deployable from virtually any population. And when killed they were easily replaceable.

GWAHAHAHAHA! Easier to use does not mean "easy for everybody." This is not reflected in their wages as they made on average three times as much as "normal soldier" and being "number one crossbowman" was like being a minor noble in several countries. You fall under the fallacy that being easier to acclimate to a weapon implies that mastery is not possible or desirable. A modern day soldier's weapon is easier then either a longbow or crossbow. They still need to train and maintain their skills and yes there is difference between a Marine and some hobo you gave a gun to and dumped on a battlefield.


@Agema and P3D
Already addressed above and before as well.