Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Redeyes]

Originally Posted by Agema

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

[rdonj]

Are you guys really going to sit here and argue about the definition of the word "fire"? It is fairly obvious what was meant by the term fire, and using historically correct terminology to describe the action of firing/shooting/loosing/releasing/flinging/beatingwithastick an arrow is fairly irrelevant to the conversation and understanding what is being said in this thread. One might even argue that it would be more correct to use more modern terminology as it would be more readily understood in common conversation. So please, go back to flaming each other for slightly less silly reasons.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Redeyes

What an absurd and peculiar little dictionary entry you have found...
I hope people here don't believe this is the correct and historical way to say "loose" just because of this.

The fact that it's defined as such in the Cambridge dictionary means people already use the language this way. That's how dictionaries work. They record and define usage, they don't direct it. If you look up 'loose' you'll find a definition relating to firing arrows also.

[MachingunJoeTurbo]

Originally Posted by Agema

Ah, trolltastic!

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.

Yes, quite right. There's all of one other post agreeing from my quick check, for the grand total of two, out of all posters in this topic. And yet you've started a huge rant about longbow fanboys. You might want to check the prevailing arguments, not go off half-cocked about one comment.

I was making a general statement because I didn't want to go off on specific people to cut down on the mass quoting (at the start anyway). I wrote something to that effect and there's other points too that I'll bring up as the come up so my huge rant is in totally even more huge than the one you see now.

I will quickly pop through the traces of intellectual meat to your last post: your waffle about various battles isn't really relevant, for the obvious reasons like morale, surprise attacks, tactics and so on also applying. re. longbow costs, "lowest bidder" rules applied then as now, I suspect. I note you consistently avoided my points on the different draw weight of Welsh/English war longbows compared other bows and longbows. Ho hum.

Then your statement of the bows being "battle winning" is therefore overally ambitious and somewhat deceptive and I don't know why you are getting angry at me for? Have you not essentially admit you were in the wrong here? I'm sorry I don't get your meaning.

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

The lowest bidder rule doesn't apply because you talking about a royal decree and not a modern capitalistic democracy.

Check your dictionary. No, hang on, let me save you the effort:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ : fire (shoot) - 1. "to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles". You need to get your facts right if you want to act like that in debates.

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong?

I think you have an emotional investment in being anti-longbow, which explains your attitude and your exhaustive yet very factually and logically limited two posts. Everyone else here is very calm about it all.

Well you certainly seem to be calm right now. I'm perfectly monk-like over here myself. Well maybe one of those twinkly eyed mischevious monks but pretty monk-like overall.

Wow. I guess then a gun is a gun is a gun. Musket, assault rifle, shotgun, what's the difference?

Well, I believe you have selectively quoted there and misunderstood me. A longbow by itself tells you nothing. A 20 pound draw longbow isn't the same as a 100 pound plus composite bow to give an obvious example. I did say that there some characteristics that define it. An example is that the longer bow is easier on your limbs because of reduced hand shock. But the nature of the bow is the same in that you are using limbs as a spring to launch a missle and is human powered. Your example is incorrect because guns can differ in principle mechanically. The longbow get's nothing that makes it better just by being a longbow.

@JimMorrison:
I clarified what I wrote above. Arced volley shooting isn't a feature it is a necessity to gain distance. You cannot choose to arc because there is no varient way to draw a hand bow. You reminded me of an additional point

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Your statement of draw weight changed nothing I said. It's not that difficult. Estimations of Mongol bow draw weight can be higher than that and the so called African Elephant bow can be as high as 300 pounds. Again strong bows are found everywhere.

Is anyone here actually arguing that strong bows aren't found everywhere? I don't recall that being the case.

6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths.

Or that the person with the longbow is releasing the shot at a different angle to achieve a different trajectory and reach?

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Remember that dictionaries change over time and are subject to modern whims which include incorrect usage. I prefaced that post with "pedantic" to emphasize I was being cute and informative and not offending your sensibilities. Next time I will add some smileys to make that clear.

Hey! Did you know that definiton is wrong?

Well then sorry to be pedantic, but you're wrong.

Believe it or not lexicographers know what they're doing. Language doesn't change on 'whims' and the definition isn't wrong, it's modern. Then again your definition of wrong appears to be 'not what I think'. If you expect everyone to use the definitions of words you personally believe rather than the ones in, say, the dictionary, I think you have an uphill battle on your hands.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

I'm not trolling because trolling is marked by a sole intent to annoy and that's not my purpose.


6.Longbows "Arcing"

Some people get the misconception that you using a handbow means you can just go up and over anything. Think about what that means. That means a person would have to pull back on the string at varient lengths. Remember what I said about arrows being "right" for bows? All bows must be pulled back to same spot every single time. This spot is called the "anchor." Many modern bows use a clicker to tell the archer where this "sweet spot" is. In other words you MUST shoot the bow at "full power" every single time to maintain consistency and form and prevent bad things from happening to your arrows. This means you cannot "arc" whenever.

This is just poppycock.
It was common military practice in the medieval ages to

a). Mark out spacings around castles as markers so bowmen and artillery knew how hard to pull for the effective range.

b). It was often done to fire same at *less* than full strength to deceive your opponent as to the maxiumum range of your pieces.

According to your argument that each bow had a specific "sweet spot". Nonsense. If you are saying that a bow had to be pulled with 40 lbs of strength - Imagine how hard it would be to match each bowman to each bow.

It is much rather true that each bow had a *Wide* range of acceptable pull strengths. And generally, the harder you pulled it the farther the arror flies.

Competitions in the middle ages were held at various distances, with some at more than 1000 feet.

Other points:
While crossbows did have the ability for a moderate amount of ascenscion- they had essentially no ability for declension.

Talented bowman could put 5 arrows in the air in two seconds - and putting three arrows in a bird before it hit the ground. You can't even begin to compare the rate of fire of a crossbow.

Saying things is rocks scissors paper is a little misleading - yes, after a time systems and tactics develop to compensate for a new weapon.

However the longbow was an amazing and groundbreaking development.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

There's nothing special about them. A bow is a bow is a bow. There is no magic that makes longbows "stronger" than other bows although there characteristics that define it simply calling them "superb" is highly deceptive.

Since obviously all bows are the same, I completely see your point now. I made bows out of switchgrass and kite string when I was a kid, and man did they SUCK, erego the longbow must be awful. It couldn't kill a man at 10 feet, unarmored!

I was under the impression that the attraction of the -Long Bow- was the incredible distance that it could be fired. You did use them en mass, and because of arced volley fire, you did not actually aim, you just lobbed as many arrows at someone as possible, before they were close enough to even do anything about it.

The crossbow on the other hand, was probably more effective, in its own effective range. However, with a lower rate of fire, you are relying more on intentionally aimed shots, and thus you must be in range to fire directly, rather than using arced volleys.


Honestly, mister Gun, I do believe that you are such a rabid protector of the honor of the crossbow, for the simple fact that it is almost a gun - and therefore must be superior to the barbaric weapons that existed previously.

[Tifone]

Aaah, this crossbow-fanboyism these days...

[thejeff]

Yeah, except berserk works as much more of an advantage in the game. Berserk knights won't retreat even when the rest of the army does. And considering knights are tough already, could win fights even after the rest of the army has routed.

To simulate what you're suggesting, you'd really want an effect that made knights ignore the scripts they're assigned. Charging at once instead of holding, not attacking the rear, etc. An interesting idea, especially if it was only a chance, but much harder to implement. It would require entirely new code.