Crossbows vs. Longbows

[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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

And relying on mechanical aid is a good thing. A human being is more likely to be inconsistent than a misaligned machine because at least a misaligned machine is much more likely to be inconsistent the same way.

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Even if the soldier had the same bow and we were assured it's quality was constant so he could "get use to it" he couldn't be sure of the quality of his arrows and if you admit variances within the bow then you know that the arrows themselves cannot be truly right for it. To truly know how your bow "behaves" you have to assume that arrows were a constant quality which you yourself admit that would be problematic in the paragraph after this one.

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Also you assume that a missed arrow that still hits somebody is the same quality of one that hits an intended target directly. The very nature of how an arrow leaves the bow has a great effect on its character. I think your assumption that the arrow wouldn't vary that much is too optimistic and the implication that an "off" arrow is just as good as a direct arrow is too ambitious as well. The rush and panic to pump out arrows is likely to mean that the archers aren't pulling as far as they need to leading to significant veering and falling short.

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

High standard compared to what? How could a medieval craftsmen compete with new materials made with computer modeling?

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Your assertion only works if getting it into that area is a given and it simply isn't. And a cohesive volley is more effective and you don't get that without "precision."

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Regular bows were easier to pump out I mean a lot of these composite crossbows used whale bone. Do you think it's easier to get a whale, kill it, remove it's whaley meats, get the bone, and craft the bone than to chop down a tree?

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

...you honestly don't think a sky scraper or a space station is more impressive and requires more practical ability than what they had in the middle ages? Scientific understanding is what refines and takes "practical ability" to new heights.

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.

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

Also chicks dig guys with skills.

Nunchuck skills?

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

GWAHAHAHAHA! Easier to use does not mean "easy for everybody." This is not reflected in their wages as they made on average three times as much as "normal soldier"

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

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

...and being "number one crossbowman" was like being a minor noble in several countries.

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.

<3

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.

[DarkAnt]

As I recall the History Channel had a show on the Battle of Crecy(hitler was not involved strangely enough). They performed tests which concluded that the English longbowmen's arrows couldn't actually penetrate French armor. They then brought in a crowd control expert who studied the landscape of the battle and thought it would represent a serious crowd control problem. They were fighting in a valley and all of the French knights were going after the same few British nobles. The History Channel then looked at how the saturated ground affected troop movement. The effect of the mud was so bad that it required something like 30lbs of force for a fully armored French knight to pull his boot out of the mud. The much lighter armored English longbowmen did not have this problem. They concluded that the French had serious crowd control issues that caused them to bunch and fall over. Unfortunately for the French, due to the suction generated by the mud+heavy smooth armor contact, the French knights became exhausted and stuck in the mud. At this point the English longbowmen just walked around and slit all of the noble's throats as they received nothing for a ransom. Its been a while since I've seen that episode so I probably have a few "facts" wrong. The History Channel has seemed to have moved on to end of the world garbage

On another note, the Pope outlawed crossbows for some time because they were so devastating. I think its very clear where I stand in the crossbow vs. longbow debate.

Edit: wow this post is 15 pages long. I thought it was 3 pages...

[Sombre]

If your memory is correct it seems that TV show ignored the presence of horses entirely. Even if longbow arrows couldn't penetrate french armour (which I believe they could) they could still take down the horses, causing a huge amount of damage. Coming off a horse abruptly in full armour while other fellows on huge horses in full armour are charging around and doing the same, that can't be a lot of fun.

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

Bingo!

<3 JM


For the record, I'm on neither side of the debate. I was actually arguing a completely seperate point

[lch]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

I don't want to enter any Crossbows vs. Longbows, Pirates vs. Ninjas, Vampires vs. Werewolves or similar discussions, but I actually have to tell a little story about this. There's this local guy that has used applied mathematics, FEM and stuff like that, to make stringed instruments. His work wasn't really popular, though, so he invested a couple of kilos and bought a Stradivarius. Then he submitted the Stradivarius as his own work, and (I think seperately) his own work as Stradivarius a couple of times. The supposed Stradivarius was always held in high favors and the perfect sound was emphasized, while the supposed own work performed not so good against "real" Stradivarius and similar great names. It shows that names are more important than quality even in this business. Since this little stunt, he now is really popular and makes good money by producing more strings, of which he can only make a few per year, AFAIK he's pretty overbooked now and he's in the newspapers here from time to time.

As for the Pyramids, I don't know, what function did they have besides being an impressive looking amount of rocks that formed a gigantic tomb? There's enough similar megalomaniacal projects around the world all time.

[Sombre]

Yeah I'm definitely not convinced we /can't/ reproduce great works of the past, it's just that we /don't/. We produce great works appropriate to our time, like supercomputers, skyscrapers and power stations. Can we make something just like the pyramids? Of course we can. But we won't, because who would ever put all the effort and manpower in? Culturual and societal pressures are entirely different.

That said we could easily make a modern versions of the pyramids by stacking machine made concrete cubes on each other. It wouldn't be impressive like th pyramids are though, because the process involved wouldn't be impressive.

[Dedas]

I want to build a pyramid in my garden to preserve me for the afterlife. I would certainly not want to look bad when attending to afterlife parties. Also, with a pyramid, my fans would have a natural place of worship.
Oh, and the pyramid could also function as a place to stash my body while I'm being called back from the place of fairies and fancy dress parties.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by lch

As for the Pyramids, I don't know, what function did they have besides being an impressive looking amount of rocks that formed a gigantic tomb? There's enough similar megalomaniacal projects around the world all time.

Well I didn't mean that the Pyramids themselves are functional, I was referring to functionality of the masonry involved, and the engineering required.

Just to clarify one thing - we still do not *know* how on Earth those pyramids got completed. The theories are getting better, but it's truly astounding how large the stones are, even near the top - we would have tremendous problems placing those stones today without a helicopter.

But back to the masonry, the Pyramids, like many ancient masterworks of stone, never had and never needed mortar, or anything to bind the stones together. They are fashioned at a level comparable to the finest machine cut stone (bear in mind, I am really comparing them to modern human stonecutters), despite the fact that they are not regular and standardized in size and shape.

Even more astounding to me, are the "viewing" portals placed strategically about the structures. These are angled tunnels, of less than 1' square, leading out from key chambers to coincide with astronomical events. There are thousands of feet of these tunnels, and the ones that I have seen (they've sent at least a couple of RC cameras up them) are perfectly smooth - impeccably crafted into hundreds of stones which whose placement and assembly is simply incredible.


We don't have stonemasons today that can even approach this level of craftsmanship on any scale even remotely approaching the construction of such an immense structure. If Khufu had ordered the Pyramid built on the day of his birth (no mean feat!) it is estimated that 250 tons of stone would have to be installed every day for his entire 60+ years of life, if they had expected it to be complete in time for his death.

Also, a cited quote from Wikipedia- "The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have a mean error of only 58 millimeter in length, and 1 minute in angle from a perfect square. The base is horizontal and flat to within 15 mm. The sides of the square are closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 3 minutes of arc based on true north not magnetic north)."


Show me someone today who can perform this feat with only 5000 year old technology, and I will surely give you a cookie, sir.

Oh and did you know, that the longbow was just used to humiliate the French at Crecy, while the Welsh waited for them to exhaust themselves, so they could slit their throats? That account of the battle seems a bit fanciful, but I can get behind it. The longbow even wins fights where it kills no one.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

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.

Interesting side note.

Common knowledge (hence often wrong) - looking at the number of bullets produced in WWII, and the number of causalties inflicted, dividing the former by the latter.. arrives at the figure of 10,000 bullets per casualty.

Which, to my mind gives hope - we really don't *like* to kill people. But the point in this context is filling the skies with sharp pointy things seems as valid today as it was hundreds of years ago.

Second point: I have upon occassion gotten to metal detect for civil war bullets et.al
I have found far more instances of unfired shells than fired ones.

Point? Beats me? Perhaps the fired ones disintegrated or were carried off in bodies. Or perhaps, under the pressure of firing they dropped a lot more slugs than they fired. Just interesting.

[lch]

I don't want to draw the attention away here, just a harmless retort...

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

We don't have stonemasons today that can even approach this level of craftsmanship on any scale even remotely approaching the construction of such an immense structure. If Khufu had ordered the Pyramid built on the day of his birth (no mean feat!) it is estimated that 250 tons of stone would have to be installed every day for his entire 60+ years of life, if they had expected it to be complete in time for his death.

I'll concur with Sombre here. It isn't that we can't, it's that nobody really bothers. People back then weren't Neanderthals, they just had different tools. Actually, I'd say give a Neanderthal the same tools and education as we have now and he should fit in without much trouble. And there are amazing feats done by people all over the centuries. There are people that do build things like they were back then and then use them to prove a point, like crossing the Atlantic with a boat made of reed.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Show me someone today who can perform this feat with only 5000 year old technology, and I will surely give you a cookie, sir.

Only one, hardly. A whole empire of loyal people under my command with some genius here or there in the ranks and an abundance of slaves, plus enough material to use up or trade away that it doesn't matter if all else is just wasteland afterwards, I guess I could show you something. What they had was hi-tech for their times, and they certainly were very organized.

How do you think will it look like in 5000 years? I don't know what it will be, but there will be something that people wonder about how we did it. That we actually managed to have space travel with this crude and dangerous technology, just shooting big barrels filled with hydrogen into the sky? And thus bringing humanity MTV, great-great-great-great grandfather of ALLNET or whatever.