Crossbows vs. Longbows - Page 16

Humakty · #1 February 5th, 2009, 07:03 AM

What everyone forgets about english victories in the early period of the hundred years war, is the english king of that time was a military genius compared to french one. He devised a clever plan to take care of french superiority in cavalry. While our king just charged forward.

So I don't think we can say english equipment of that time was superior to french one, no more we can say french equipment was superior to all others in 1800 due to the success of Napoleon.

Sun Tzu explains quite clearly in his book that military success is all about surprising your ennemy, and outwitting him, than just having bigger guns. The (all relative) failure of USA forces during some of their campains well shows that just having many high tech big guns is not enougth to ensure a victory. (I'm more precisely thinking about the campain of france in 1944 : they lost as many men than the germans, having total superiority in many domains (air, supplies...))

And someone said england was a better place to be a peasant in the medieval era than the continental countries. Well, I'm sure it is for this reason that England was the first country in europe to get rid of a dinasty. By chopping some crowned heads off....

Agema · #2 February 5th, 2009, 08:44 AM

The English Civil War was a power struggle between the king and the gentry (= minor aristocracy). Peasants were neither here nor there, nor were they in the French Revolution.

I'd agree though that there's probably little evidence to say an English peasant was in a better position than a Continental peasant, although Western European peasants were better off than Eastern European serfs.

Aezeal · #3 February 5th, 2009, 10:25 AM

I think some one needs to contact a prof specialized in this field since it's obvious all points of view can get backed up by some web page or another

Humakty · #4 February 5th, 2009, 11:30 AM

I must agree that peasants were rarely part of anything political during medieval time. Too busy suffering maybe ?

The main problem with history is that it's all about theories, with little evidence. People never think about leaving fool prof evidence ahead of time. Rather the contrary, in fact. (if this message upsets anyone, I'm sorry, as usual...Blah,blah,blah... no intention to cause harm or...blah, blah,blah... not sue able in anyway.Thanks for reading.)

Agema · #5 February 5th, 2009, 12:13 PM

There's nothing like the web for allowing lots of people who don't know enough about something to spout opinions based on the webpage opinions of other people who don't know enough either.

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

Thilock_Dominus · #6 February 5th, 2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agema

There's nothing like the web for allowing lots of people who don't know enough about something to spout opinions based on the webpage opinions of other people who don't know enough either.

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

Catapult FTW!!1

JimMorrison · #7 February 5th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agema

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

I said that like 60 posts ago.

Then a certain someone claimed that victory does not prove the usefulness of a tool. I firmly believe that if the tool that you have works, then it is good. You may wish you had an impact wrench, but you got the bolts loose, and that's all that matters in the end.

Agema · #8 February 13th, 2009, 06:32 AM

Some bows have been capable of extreme ranges, but I think we could assume they were specialised for the purpose, maybe for medieval bragging rights. Your average skilled battlefield archer with a powerful long or composite bow would be unlikely to exceed 300-400 metres.

JimMorrison · #9 February 13th, 2009, 04:53 PM

It was my understanding that they, of course, were for specialized use, referred to by terms such as War Bow and Siege Bow (in various languages). Their use (AFAIK) was similar to mortar fire today - indirect bombardment across valleys or over walls to harass and demoralize an opponent that is trying to maintain a defensive position.

Lingchih · #10 February 17th, 2010, 01:41 AM

Wow, you resurrected this thread Maerlande? Well, your post was good, and informative.