Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved.

I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows?

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Again you keep returning to aid in the form of aiming. Aid includes things such as weapon quality and the quality of the shot of an arrow not only the "sights" as someone mentioned before. Just because you take the hard way around doesn't mean the results are inherently better. If someone sings a beautiful opera standing up and someone seeks a very meh opera standing on his head juggling poodles with his feet who is the better singer? If you are judging by RESULTS the guy who standing wins. To judge poodle guy the winner you have to operate on faith that without the poodles the potential skill level would rise up to overcome the other singer. Longbowmen were stuck with their "poodles" from the very beginning and were worse for it because the RESULTS are going to be much much worse. There is no magical human potential that uplifts them.

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

They are not really different because those powers fought nations who were more or less still in the previous age using previous age weaponry. The imperialist would not have prevailed if there was a distinct tactical on battlefield advantage. And if by knight you meant mounted troops with a powerful charge no they did not disappear in practice. Cavalry was still very much in use.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.

Originally Posted by Agema

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

The Hussite Crusades were a big deal. Everybody was spamming troops at them. Longbowmen were a major part of Charles the Bold's military identity to point where they are continually featured in depictions of his army.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

Addressed above.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

[
Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.
...

Addressed above.

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Agema

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

If you mean purely technology wise yes but in usage and essential principles they are on the same line which is how they could coexist in essentially the same breath until the firearm was refined.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

This reasoning of yours is dubious and somewhat vague. There's nothing about the English medieval archer that would suggest they would surpass the Indian one on any of these aspects. If anything the Indian army had a more complex way of breaking down the chain of command.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

And if rate of shooting and the accuracy of those arrows were "good enough" as has been stated before by others this wouldn't be true because speed wise the musket is in the same ballpark as the crossbow and accuracy wise it is in many ways worse. That was what I was getting at.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

I'm not changing anything as I've mentioned Indians specifically before.

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

Perhaps but one is very much more reliant of support and other factors than the other. I'll give you a hint it rhymes with "bong snow."

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

Even when arguments do not include "instantly dominating" they have cue words that try to wheedle something special out of them. You are all not a hive mind and like I said when I post I try to be comprehensive and remember all that has been said before by other people and not just who I'm quoting at the moment. And if you remember I was speaking of this phenomenon existing elsewhere as well. There have been elements of weirdness, the original post's assertion, the assumptions made by certain individuals about how arrows can behave, three arrows in a bird before it hits the ground and all that. Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me.

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not. Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing. Otherwise I could have dismissed anyone calling me a troll or saying I was biased against the English or unreasonable or other tricks without addressing the core of what they were saying in turn, no? Like I said speaking broadly and relating about what is seen in these versus things over the past if you don't fit the profile I am obviously not talking about you then am I?

And again like I said your consensus doesn't exist and if did it matters no more than "tonality" does. Such things are only failures in argument when it is all they have left.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing.

Your entire argument, starting from your initial post, has been that crossbows are -superior- to longbows, and in fact you seem to want to argue every single point - thus implying that your viewpoint is that crossbows are superior to longbows in every conceivable way (except for cost!). Also, if you go back and reread your first post, it is openly insulting to people you have never had a running dialogue with. This has the result of making people who believe that "neither weapon is superior in all cases" want to disagree with you. It's not so much that you alienate people who already agree with you completely, it's that you alienate everyone who does NOT already agree with you completely, which is most people. Facts matter, but also approaching a disagreement in a manner that invites people to agree with you AND allows people to politely disagree without feeling foolish - is almost equally important, when communicating with other humans (we may not look like much on the internets, but I assure you, most of us ARE human).

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not.

And again, it was made simply and abundantly clear that currently both weapons have equal usefulness, with the usefulness of slings (just mentioned for clarity) waning already in Middle Age, and the usefulness of short/long/composite bows beginning to wane in Late Age, as crossbows come into prominence.

One person makes a post wondering if longbows should be AP as well, and it seems that the discussion was showing a lack of need for a change, and a lack of any momentum pushing for a change. In fact, by the time you arrived, the discussion had transformed into one of the relative merits of different weapons and armor, and what really constitutes armor "piercing" damage in the first place.


Personally I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion, until you so rudely brought it back onto the original topic. Not necessarily saying it's best to range so far off topic (though I love it, myself), just that you kind of pooped the party, my friend.