Crossbows vs. Longbows

[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.

[chrispedersen]

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.

[13lackGu4rd]

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.