Crossbows vs. Longbows

[JimMorrison]

I like you lch, so I won't beat this horse like some people might. We've both said our piece on that, and I recognize the validity of both perspectives, even if you think I am just wrong.

I'll just say that I really didn't mean to imply that we can't perform these feats with similar or greater precision - using machines. Just that in many areas, stonemasonry as a prime example, we are dependent on the aid of those machines, and the prevalence (not existence) of such skills, is far less than in previous eras.

Oh, interesting thought to chew on as well - there are structures in Nepal that are hundreds of years old, constructed only of raw timbers, hay, and mud.

I don't doubt that the modern era will leave artifacts behind, but I would think they will be interesting, rather than amazing. See Antikythera.

Okay okay, but I didn't beat the horse, I only pet it. Nice dead horse, good boy.

[Lingchih]

As Original Poster, I demand that this thread stop.

Unless it will get me some kind of record. In that case, post away.

[Agema]

Chrispederson is right, that as a general rule for missile fire, volume has been more important than accuracy. An obvious side effect would also be that the missile should be useful - arrows don't stop tanks.

The Russians did a study that led up to the development of the AK-47. They found that most decisive firefights occurred at under 100 metres range and possibly the major factor to determining the winner was who was firing more bullets. Similarly, in the age of muskets, the chances of hitting a specific target with a musket beyond a few dozen metres was very low. The idea was simply to get to about 100 metres or less and fire in the right general direction as fast as possible.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Lingchih

As Original Poster, I demand that this thread stop.

Unless it will get me some kind of record. In that case, post away.

OP of the umpteenth X vs. Y thread award, maybe?

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Every post, and this does look more and more like a personal agenda - and a very emotionally biased one, at that. On that note, I do not choose a side in this argument, I believe that both tools of war have valid applications, and that one may excel where the other fails - thus my amusement with this entire argument. But still, I want to dance with you, Joe.

And by this reasoning you are emotionally involved as well through your amusement.

You are gleefully missing the point. He said that working with less sophisticated equipment creates a better operator. The point boiled down to this - take a modern compound bow, and remove the sights and other "archer aids". Odds are, that the classically trained longbowman will operate that bow at a level superior to a modern archery student, who has only ever fired a bow with all of the modern accessories.

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. And how do you train said expert archer if the quality of equipment is not a given? Technology is a good thing. If you had it why wouldn't you use it?

Again, the theory behind the use of archers seemed to be "sheer # of pointy sticks flying through the air". Perhaps hastily crafted arrows are not suitable for target archery, or even for hunting. But they are just fine for firing at thousands of screaming soldiers. Most of them. You shrug off the bad arrows, because you have highly trained your archers to fire quickly and tirelessly, to saturate your field with projectiles.

This relies on purely on faith and the exactness required for even a semblance of accuracy over a short distance doesn't bear this out. You are assuming that they are "good enough" and assuming that again the archers are trained to the point where they shoot "tirelessly." Not so. Each successive shot of a bowmen will tend to get worse and worse as they tire and as they suffer from fear.

Oddly, you are also making an -assumption- here, that disagrees very widely with historical accounts, that only precisely and purposefully fired arrows are lethal. Most bow volleys were not fired at short range, and thus were not fired directly. They are lobbed in the general direction of a foe, with the assumption that enough of them will find meat, to justify the expense.

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? Many of those countries like India had the longbow in their culture for many more years and refined to a point that England never took it. But despite the fact that said Imperialist powers were armored only in a brightly colored coat and armed with a weapon that was arguably slower than a crossbow, the bow shooting peoples did not prevail. If said fighting style of cohesive lateral missile weapons were not effective the outcome of that period of history would be very different.

And again when you look at other medieval battles you see without significantly hampering the assault and other factors England did not win. I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up. But despite your claims they could not cut down a mere 100 of those French in total from any distance. While they in turn were massacred. Focus and seizing the moment in a cohesive strike is far better than missile spam of dubious quality.

I don't know, come back to me when modern craftsmen can replicate the functional perfection of say, a Stradivarius, or the Great Pyramid. There are truly countless examples of physical feats that our predecessors performed at levels of proficiency that are as yet unmatched in modern day.

Simply not true for reasons that others explained.

I believe the entire argument up to now, has been the temporal ease with which the English were able to raise large numbers of longbowmen. The point being that perhaps 1000 crossbowmen in many cases are superior to 1000 longbowmen, but 2000 longbowmen with slightly inferior ability, and slightly inferior arrows, will create a level of saturation that will -possibly- achieve the desired effect more readily. There are 2 VERY important points about this. The first is that the historical accounts are that this period was one of great success for England, so we know that the Welsh longbow must be good for something. But also, we know that there is no true way to compare the performance of the available alternatives, because we're hundreds of years past the fact. So you are arguing theory (your heartfelt beliefs in the ability of the crossbow) versus the reality of the longbow's success.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.

Many animal parts were used for composite bows (cross or traditional), but composite crossbows were not used exclusively, nor was whale bone the industry standard. Seems that ox and other more commonly seen animals yielded most of the materials.

And even this brings the cost up. More materials mean more cost. The fact they even bothered with whale bone shows how important they thought they were and how they could not be "cheap."

I do not think that anyone argued that we can do things that more primitive men could not. The point is, they also could do things that WE cannot. Pride in our accomplishments will not bring back the depth and capability of pre-modern craftsmen.

Pride won't technology will.

Nunchuck skills?

Yea verily.

Where do you get your figures on expected medieval salaries? This is a pretty bold claim, and I think deserves a source.

Compared to several other claims made by other posters that go unquestioned? Not really but you didn't ask them now did you? No doubt in several places I've read but if you want an example from the horses mouth you can look at this old English wage roll cited here in this quaint old book

http://books.google.com/books?id=r7o...esult#PPA59,M1

"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve crossbow-men, and thirteen archers, for twenty-four days, each crossbow-man receiving by the day 4d and each archer 2d"

Archers made more than a standard foot mook generally and crossbows more than that as shown here.

Well it's a good thing that no one ever celebrated and revered master archers, or you might not have a point at all here.

Except that "Master of Crossbowmen" was also Master of Archers. My point is still there I'm sorry to inform you.

I have yet to see a weapon fire magic bullets, and I would agree that the longbow certainly does not do so. And neither does the crossbow.

I think your rigid thinking holds you back from the true reality of warfare (especially medieval warfare), that there is no right answer - there is only what works.

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.

[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.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

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.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.
...

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.

I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up.

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.

Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

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.

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.

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

[Wrana]

To original question:
Usage of slings is mentioned in Tamerlan's memoires - at 15th century in Middle Asia - classical composite bow country.

[Thilock_Dominus]

Everyone knows what's best;

[Tifone]

I think it would have been a GREAT idea. Load the little furry-feet.