Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
honeybadger, i don't know where you're getting your information, but so much of it is flat out wrong that i don't know where to start.
Example: your figures for speed and power of an arbalest come from an uncited assertion on wikipedia. In particular, i highly doubt the 2/min rate of *accurate* fire listed. You might be able to winch and fire 2/min without aiming at all. But those 5k lbs of force have to be cranked into the arbalest by the operator, and that takes time. (You don't get anything out that you don't put in). And there is open scepticism of 5k lbs of force as an accurate number on the talk page. (Indeed, the page is basically uncited since one of the two citations has absolutely nothing to do with any material actually on the page, and the other may or may not, but without being specifically referenced to a statement there's no way to know).
I will point out that it was firearms which forced the increasing thickness of combat armor in the late medieval period until armored knights became completely untenable.
I will point out that the french used crossbows/arbalests (there's no difference in medieval useage) because they were afraid to let peasants train with longbows, and thus their peasants *couldn't* use longbows in any military capacity. (the english, otoh, required peasants to train with the bow for most of the medieval period, and thus had a corp of highly trained bowmen available).
And by the time there were steel-bowed crossbows (c. 14th century), the cannon had already become state-of-the-art in medieval siege warfare.
And by the time you have either matchlocks or wheellocks, crossbows were museum pieces at best.
|
Hybrid Mode
