Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachinegunJoeTurbo

The English did it because of cost reasons and got stuck so to speak which is a recurrent problem with the country throughout it's history similar to how they were slow to change from hand cutting coal to machine cut which hampered their industry

Er, do you have a problem with the English or British?

Firstly, you seem determined to not just deny any credit to them for use of the longbow, but to make out they were cheap, and only won battles because the French were incompetent.

Now you're making bizarre accusations that they repeatedly get "stuck" using old and inefficient technologies and practices. On what grounds would you argue they were any worse than any other race nation? How do you explain they were and still are near the front of technological advancement since about 1700?

* * *

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source of information but...

Worldwide the average power for bows of all designs is about 220 newtons (50 pounds) at 70 cm (28 inches) of draw which is suitable for most hunting applications. Bows for warfare tend to be much more powerful, with the most powerful bows being the English longbow and the African elephant bow, both of which topped the 900 N (200-pound) at 80 cm (32 inches) mark.

This is the point. It's not that longbows are worldwide and strong bows are worldwide. It that bows - of any sort - with draw weights of an English longbow were very rare as battlefield weapons. Getting thousands of men who can pull a 220N bow effectively is a very different matter from getting thousands who can pull an 600-900N bow.

I maintain that extra weight a) made the bows much more effective and b) that it required the sort of training the English king compelled on his subjects. Which makes the English longbow not just your average bow fired by your average archer.