Crossbows vs. Longbows - Page 22

BigDaddy · #**211** February 21st, 2010, 01:42 PM

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.

RamsHead · #**212** February 21st, 2010, 02:52 PM

If you outlaw crossbows, only outlaws will have crossbows!

BigDaddy · #**213** February 21st, 2010, 03:20 PM

If I understand the position of more reasonable gun control people, they look at supply side problems, especially disasters like the cold war dumping of guns across the world like we were salting fries.

So, they want to restrict some sort of access to firearms, especially in places were no everyone has a gun.

You have to think carefully about this, because when the Church banned them, they almost assuredly had a good reason (they've been teaching philosophy for a very long time). If there weren't a lot of crossbows then banning them would be a good decision.

I don't have a price comparison of a crossbow and a bow or longbow at the time.

chrispedersen · #**214** February 21st, 2010, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.

sun tzu said that casualties are the square of the effective ratios of troops. And roughly he was correct.

So for example if you outnumber your enemy 3:2, your casualties will be of the ratio 4:9.

These rules of war were later expanded on by Liddell Hart; generally an interesting and controversial guy.

Maerlande · #**215** February 23rd, 2010, 02:28 AM

I promised rdonj and Lingchih I wouldn't propagate this thread. I lied.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a numbnuts and a tit. So there!!! Cause I'm right and you are wrong.

Now that's a classic internet forum argument. I'm great and you suck.

BigDaddy · #**216** February 23rd, 2010, 02:31 AM

What you're really supposed to do is assume we are all your enemies, and then twist our words, while simultaneously being extremely critical of any errors, ussually precieved errors, or ambibuities, and magnify them into us being idiots, often, wether we agree with you or not.

Maerlande · #**217** February 23rd, 2010, 02:36 AM

I've given this more consideration. Sadly that was a waste of my time because it appears that most of you didn't understand a thing I said. Who gives a rat's behind whether a crossbow was banned by the church. It's not like people didn't do many things banned by the church. For example, the fornication of boys by priests is no allowed by the church but that sure didn't stop it.

The simple engineering is that a longbow has very GOOD penetration of armour. And a horking big crossbow also has very good penetrations.

However, a longbow can be fired as fast as it can be drawn. A high pull crossbow takes longer. Anyone can do the math.

And eat my shorts. I'm right and you are wrong. Since I'm always right.

Gregstrom · #**218** February 23rd, 2010, 02:46 AM

And... crossbows were used by William Tell, who was Swiss. And Switzerland has a border with Austria, where Hitler was born. Therefore crossbows are tainted with Hitler-ness, and evil.

And Godwin is satisfied, and we can all go home.

Maerlande · #**219** February 23rd, 2010, 02:56 AM

Oh I love that logic Gregstrom. Fine stuff.

13lackGu4rd · #**220** February 23rd, 2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy

The way I understand it, it is very simple. You want more arrows in the air, but most peasants couldn't he anything with a longbow and they might even have trouble pulling it back. But, with crossbows anyone can kind of aim, and you can really pack them together. You don't need to pay them much at all.

As in:
"No longbows? We'll just get 3-4x the number in x-bows then..."

It is very similar to one of the Chinese, I think, general or mathmaticians that showed that obtaining victory and the scale of that victory is propotional (and related to) how many arrows you fire. So, rather than using a simple to aim crossbow, they went with repeating crossbows that are near impossible to aim, but that fire very quickly. He appears to have been quite right. (I believe I heard of this on PBS, not the History Channel).

As far as banning them, the reality is that the x-bow could be used by brigands like a saturday night special to kill laws enforcement. It took no skill... So, argue, I suppose about the benefits of gun control, but if there weren't that many, stopping production might have been just the thing to do.

if you're talking about a standard battle than you'll probably be right. however in battles such as Agincourt for examples, the Longbow really shined. the thing about the Longbow is that it has tremendous range(even more than the early muskets) it also has very good accuracy due to the sheer amount of training required to become a Longbow archer. now, in Agincourt for example the British exploited their range advantage to its fullest, firing at the French from very far away, and digging up into defensive positions with poles sticking from the ground to protect said Longbow archers from the Frankish Knight's charge.

as for the Chinese, in China the situation was a bit different as in Europe. China was the only "civilized" military at its area, the rest were tribesmen or "barbarians" as the Greeks would call them. said tribesmen were superb horsemen, and were very capable of using bows as well, but only had access to simple weaponry, at least until the secrets of gunpowder were leaked to them via China... thus the Chinese repeating Crossbow was the perfect weapon to break the technological stalemate between China and its tribal enemies, who eventually used everything the Chinese used. also without access to long range weapons(say Longbows) and plentiful cavalry and horse archers, the repeating Crossbow's lack of range was not as crucial, thus its superb firing rate gave it a huge advantage.