Longbow vs Knights?

[Puzz3D]

Maelstrom,

You are more likely to miss at longer range due to inaccuracy and target movement, but the power of the projectile is a constant over the entire pathlength. I don't know how the increased/decreased effectiveness of archers firing from higher/lower ground respectively is implemented. I suspect it's a change to the accuracy parameter.

This constant power modelling is a major problem with guns. You can't make the guns have the really high effectiveness they should have at close range without making them too effective at long range.

[Hakonarson]

Constant power for guns isn't really that much of a problem.

Gunpowder artillery didn't lack for hitting power at any range (no amount of armour will help againast a hit from a cannonball or even a torsional/swinging beam artillery projectile!!).

Hand-held guns only require degraded hitting power if you let them shoot as far as they possibly can instead of giving them a limited range bracket. Eg handguns COULD shoot several hundred metres, but the game limits them to about 100m or so(??), so in effect they lose any ability at all in the range band where they would be losing effectiveness.

It's a crude binary application, but it works nad the alternative is to try to model the ballistic path for every individual projectile and that might be jsut a little much for your average desktop computer on top of everything else!

Archery suffers

[Richard the Slayer]

Longbow aside for a moment, one odd thing I have noticed is that while longbow have armor benefits in shooting crossbow do not get this benefit. This doesnt make any sense. In theory the crossbow had even greater power than the longbow in armor penetration, but the crossbows sole disadvanatge compared to the longbow was its slow rate of fire and limited range.

[Papa Bear!]

I'm not sure this is true. Since the game included arbalests, (just heavier xbows), it makes sense for the regular crossbow to be realtively weak.

I think thats all the explanation you really need.

[Maelstrom]

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Longbow aside for a moment, one odd thing I have noticed is that while longbow have armor benefits in shooting crossbow do not get this benefit. This doesnt make any sense. In theory the crossbow had even greater power than the longbow in armor penetration, but the crossbows sole disadvanatge compared to the longbow was its slow rate of fire and limited range.[/QUOTE]

In theory, but power isn't everyting. They used to prove armour by firing a crossbow bold into the breastplate - yet a longbow bodkin could still penetrate (OK, so maybe they used feeble crossbows.... ).

I think the penetrating power of the longbow has something to do with the long shaft carrying compression waves up and down the length of the arrow on impact. Effectively the bodkin acts like a demolition hammer and drills its way through the plate...

[cart6566]

If you get them up on a slope it works much better. The cav slow down on the ascent and the longbows get a bonus shooting downhill.

[Kraxis]

Quote Originally posted by Puzz3D:
You are more likely to miss at longer range due to inaccuracy and target movement, but the power of the projectile is a constant over the entire pathlength. [/QUOTE]

I can attest to that, at least it is only a small difference. Longbows will simply kill a lof of heavy enemies at long range if their unit are close together (not mingled though, then it would be even higher).

But the accuracy seems impossibly high (comparably) at very short ranges, ranges where only the front line fires.
I saw my Longbows kill 7 Chivalric Knights in one salvo from a frontline of 20 Longbows. They routed after that.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Puzz3D]

Hakonarson,

Is the pathlength of bullets limited in MTW? It wasn't in STW and WE/MI. Bullets traveled far beyond the range at which guns could open fire because of the relatively flat trajectory. Bullets in the game don't slow down and they don't loose power. They travel in a vacuum.

[Hakonarson]

The range at which you can fire gunpowder weapons is limited in MTW - at least up to the ones I've seen (demi-cannon?)

If yo fight one of the seige historical battle that has lots of guns (say #2 in hte French 100 yrs war campaign) you'll see this.

the cannon balls also slow down when they hit the ground - as they all do sooner or later - and bounce to a halt.

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Papa Bear!:
I'm not sure this is true. Since the game included arbalests, (just heavier xbows), it makes sense for the regular crossbow to be realtively weak.

I think thats all the explanation you really need.

[/QUOTE]

I see. Then I hope that arbalests have armor benefits unlike crossbows.

[Puzz3D]

Hakonarson,

Cannons seem fine, but I'm refering to handguns and arquebusiers. I know the range at which you can open fire is limited, but is the pathlength after you fire limited? In STW and WE/MI v1.0 the arquebusier could open fire at about 100 meters, but the projectile traveled something like 500 meters before it hit the ground. Guns are weak enough in MTW that it's not really an issue the way it was in STW and WE/MI. It's possible the pathlength is limited in MTW. I haven't tried to find out.

[Arcsim]

Quote Originally posted by shokaku76:
Ehhh... that's what Peasants are there for. Hold up the cav, while the Longbows pepper them with arrows. [/QUOTE]

Obviously you have never actually tried this. Peseants rout in a matter of seconds against knights, which will reduce the morale of your bowmen.

[Papa Bear!]

I've said this before in other threads, but since I see this one isn't dieing, (and I don't think I've mentioned it here).

The problem with a realistic recreation of say, agincourt, isn't just the lack of breast works. or mud, etc. etc. etc

Its also entirely worth noting that archers didn't let fly arrows in the same manner as they did in the game. For maximum range a bow must be fired at roughly 45 degrees, (which fits with the MTw style), but for closer shots a much lower angle would be used. One of the problems with TW archery is that it keeps to this high arc angle of fire for bows almost regardless of the range.

Longbows, when strung out into a long row, (arbalest style), should be able to achieve a similar "flat" trajectory effect. Knocking down a great number of men in the front rows, thus breaking a charge and increasing accuracy against a moving unit.

Furthermore, the way the missles in TW are modeled, (I think), favors a flat trajectory shot, not just for accuracy against moving targets, (as the arc weapons tend to overshoot), but also because with a flat trajectory your bolt can miss the front row, and still have a chance of striking targets to the rear.

With a bow, your missle misses its one chance for a target, (as the arrow is generally falling downward), and then it hits the ground.

My point in all this is that field defenses aren't the only thing missing from MTW archery, I think the physics they use aren't accurate enough to give them their proper strengths.

Similarly, the range/power effects don't seem to be properly modeled.

An arrow has fletchings that control its flight through the air, thus preserving its power and its direction. (just like you put a spin on a football when you throw it, or the rifling in a, well a rifle). A bolt from an x-bow however, is basically a long metal shaft, or if not metal, it at least has a much higher metal to shaft ratio then an arrow. (x bow bolts were short and stubby, they were basically a heavy stake that was propelled by the slingshot mechanism of an xbow, these missles would wobble through the air, and in general, they would not maintain their trajectory/power as well as an arrow)

Xbows=heavy close range armor piercing weapons.

Bows=longer range, and better sustained power/trajectory, (which would in turn increase accuracy).

I don't personally know much about the arbalest weapon modeled in MTW, but I suspect that one of the flaws of the MTW approach is that arbalests are so potent at range. (in addition to the other issues I mentioned) When in fact, crossbows, of any design or power, simply weren't as effective of a field range weapon as a bow. As it is arbalests are the best ranged weapon due to their long range punch, and I think this where the longbow has been short changed a great deal.

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Papa Bear!:
I've said this before in other threads, but since I see this one isn't dieing, (and I don't think I've mentioned it here).

The problem with a realistic recreation of say, agincourt, isn't just the lack of breast works. or mud, etc. etc. etc

Its also entirely worth noting that archers didn't let fly arrows in the same manner as they did in the game. For maximum range a bow must be fired at roughly 45 degrees, (which fits with the MTw style), but for closer shots a much lower angle would be used. One of the problems with TW archery is that it keeps to this high arc angle of fire for bows almost regardless of the range.

Longbows, when strung out into a long row, (arbalest style), should be able to achieve a similar "flat" trajectory effect. Knocking down a great number of men in the front rows, thus breaking a charge and increasing accuracy against a moving unit.

Furthermore, the way the missles in TW are modeled, (I think), favors a flat trajectory shot, not just for accuracy against moving targets, (as the arc weapons tend to overshoot), but also because with a flat trajectory your bolt can miss the front row, and still have a chance of striking targets to the rear.

With a bow, your missle misses its one chance for a target, (as the arrow is generally falling downward), and then it hits the ground.

My point in all this is that field defenses aren't the only thing missing from MTW archery, I think the physics they use aren't accurate enough to give them their proper strengths.

Similarly, the range/power effects don't seem to be properly modeled.

An arrow has fletchings that control its flight through the air, thus preserving its power and its direction. (just like you put a spin on a football when you throw it, or the rifling in a, well a rifle). A bolt from an x-bow however, is basically a long metal shaft, or if not metal, it at least has a much higher metal to shaft ratio then an arrow. (x bow bolts were short and stubby, they were basically a heavy stake that was propelled by the slingshot mechanism of an xbow, these missles would wobble through the air, and in general, they would not maintain their trajectory/power as well as an arrow)

Xbows=heavy close range armor piercing weapons.

Bows=longer range, and better sustained power/trajectory, (which would in turn increase accuracy).

I don't personally know much about the arbalest weapon modeled in MTW, but I suspect that one of the flaws of the MTW approach is that arbalests are so potent at range. (in addition to the other issues I mentioned) When in fact, crossbows, of any design or power, simply weren't as effective of a field range weapon as a bow. As it is arbalests are the best ranged weapon due to their long range punch, and I think this where the longbow has been short changed a great deal.[/QUOTE]

Well said, well said. I love this post because the longbow vs the knight was such an integral part of the middle ages that it should be recreated accurately. Papa at short range crossbow/arb should be deadly, but at long range they should be inaccurate. Longbows should be effective at both long and short range. The only real area longbow were superior to other bow units (crossbow could match longbow power, wimpy bows can match longbow rate of fire)was range. In fact, its safe to say that longbow have an effective range double that of any other medieval archer. Ironically, the musket of the Naploenic Wars still had half the effective range of the longbow (100-150 yds compared to 200-300 yds). I have read a good overview of the longbow in a book by donald featherstone who says as late as 1794 one British general pointed out numerous advantages that the longbow had over the musket so the british could introduce it back into service (of course this never happened). Interestingly enough, in 1776 Benjamin Franklin himself advocated the use of bowman instead of musketmen (I was shocked as you when I read this!). The point is, the longbow had inherant advantages over any other small arms missile weapon until the advent of the rifled musket (1840).

[Hakonarson]

Blah blah blah - yes, 300 yrs of musketeers were all using the wrong weapon because the longbow was the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc...

Except of course it wasn't.

Yes - that machine gun of the midle ages actually didn't stop men in their tracks at all. It sometimes punched holes in their armour, hurt like hell and made them bleed, but it was unlikely to kill them outright or even make them stop dead in their tracks.

Yes it could wound horses and make them uncontrollable - but heck, virtually any missile weapon can do that!

Firearms however stopped men and horses - dead! Or close to it!

That's one of the main reasons why they were adopted - despite all the advantages of the longbow.

For an insight into the eral effectiveness of teh longbow vs armoured targets consider this:

at Flodden in 1514 the English remarked that the Scots nobles leading the pike charge were so well armourd that neither bill nor bow made much impression on them - fortunately for the English there weer few such men, the great bulk of the Scots being unarmoured.

Also the short heavy bolt fired from a crossbow actually has a HIGHER ballistic performance than a long arrow - crossbows aer not outranged or less accurate than longbows....unless of course it is Robin Hood with the longbow!! lol

For an interesting discussion about the mechanics of a crossbow have a look at this site: http://www.florilegium.org/files/ARC...ossbow-FAQ.rtf

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Blah blah blah - yes, 300 yrs of musketeers were all using the wrong weapon because the longbow was the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc...

Except of course it wasn't.

Yes - that machine gun of the midle ages actually didn't stop men in their tracks at all. It sometimes punched holes in their armour, hurt like hell and made them bleed, but it was unlikely to kill them outright or even make them stop dead in their tracks.

Yes it could wound horses and make them uncontrollable - but heck, virtually any missile weapon can do that!

Firearms however stopped men and horses - dead! Or close to it!

That's one of the main reasons why they were adopted - despite all the advantages of the longbow.

For an insight into the eral effectiveness of teh longbow vs armoured targets consider this:

at Flodden in 1514 the English remarked that the Scots nobles leading the pike charge were so well armourd that neither bill nor bow made much impression on them - fortunately for the English there weer few such men, the great bulk of the Scots being unarmoured.

Also the short heavy bolt fired from a crossbow actually has a HIGHER ballistic performance than a long arrow - crossbows aer not outranged or less accurate than longbows....unless of course it is Robin Hood with the longbow!! lol

For an interesting discussion about the mechanics of a crossbow have a look at this site: http://www.florilegium.org/files/ARC...ossbow-FAQ.rtf
[/QUOTE]

sorry I dont really know what your talking about. I've read around 15 books on medieval combat and the longbow. historians point out the reason gunpowder was accepted over longbows was two fold. One gunpowder weapons were simpler to handle, two gunpowder weapons didnt require tedious man hours to train men. the longbow was deadly principly because every longbowmen was a exhaustively trained man. England typically had sundays reserved for archery practice or tournaments in the middle ages. Edward (the first?) even outlawed all other sports such as football in favor of archery practice on sundays. every welsh or english longbowmen was trained since a very early age to use the weapon to its maximum potential. when we speak of the longbow we speak of it figuratively as both the elite longbowman and the longbow itself. So the weapon was in the man and the weapon. in fact, gunpowder weapons were hopelessly inaccurate and unwieldy. as said earlier its simple design made recruits using it ideal. the years of tough training of longbow fell out of disfavor. furthermore, i doubt you would want to argue with many notable historians on the subject as you would get shot down. problem is you cant rely on what people say here without reading about it yourself. also i find people who pretend to know what their talking about and writing up boloney post to be ranters. read BOOKS and perhaps you'll find the english longbow to be the deadliest missile fire weapon before 1800.

[Richard the Slayer]

In response to your other comments. yes crossbow were quite deadly, but they had a lack of range and had a slow rate of fire. remember too that longbow could shoot 12-15 shafts in a minute, by the best of accounts. the smoothbore musket had a slow rate of fire, 3-5 aimed shots a minute. yes, the musketball could penetrate armor quite well, that is, if you hit anything at all. casaulty rates for horse and musket battles were typically 20-30%. hundred years war battles with the english typically ran as high as 75%. You are correct in saying many troops did not actually die from longbow shots. But battles wernt won by deaths. they were won by MORALE. the arrows terrified horses, rightfully so, considering thousands of arrows going everywhere. also, their are intersting tid bits about longbow shafts penetrating 8 inch oak on occasion. supposodly there is a door in a church in england that had a shaft penetrate right through. also if you know anything about muskets before the advent of the RIFLED musket the SMOOTHBORE musket fired a ball at an extremely low velocity, so penetration was harder, but still quite good.

[Papa Bear!]

An arrow just not just make you bleed?

I don't know if this knowledge was aquired via cartoons, or braveheart... or what, but being an archer myself, and having had a great deal of people I know all take large game with arrow propelling weapons, (i.e. bows), I must say that the idea that an arrow impact would only cause bleeding, and some pain, is absolute bolongna.

I'm not gonna get repetitive here, (as, between richard and I, we've made a pretty clear and thorough arguement above I think), but I think you need to research your material better, or provide better evidence from the research you've done.

And I don't think the bow was really the machine gun of the middle ages, they may've been faster than an xbow that was drawn with a windlass, but they weren't exceptionally fast.

[G0THIC-Lobster]

well in the 100 year war it do pretty well againist the frank knight but, what weather did you fight em in ifs it in poor, of course they can only hit 1 dude or maybe their armor are tough enough to withstand it.The dude probably got near 60 arrows on their armour.
And also i watch this japenese old fashion (black n white in japenese) their was this dude which have his armour filled with arrows and i wonder why won't he die. But later he was head shooted but he still walk for a while and say something. Gees that was unrealistic and of course the other samurai was freaked out9well thats what i think, i don't know jap.)_

[Maelstrom]

I'm with RTS on this one. A quote from the crossbow artcile referenced above:

Quote Crossbows of medieval and renaissance design were very inefficient devices.
Modern tests indicate that armor-piercing bolts, while heavier than war arrows,
acheived about the same velocity (130-40 fps) from a 700 lb. draw crossbow as
an arrow did from a 80 lb. draw longbow.[/QUOTE]

The longbows raised with the Mary Rose had an average draw of 150 lb, with the strongest being 180 lb. The skeletons of the Archers found on the boat showed skeletal distortion in the shoulders from a lifetime of using heavy bows. We really shouldn't underestimate them.

As for rate of fire, I can get off 6 aimed (though not precision) shots on target in 20 seconds and I am hopeless. I don't believe you could get any more than a fraction of this rate of fire with anything other than a simple hand drawn and very puny crossbow...


[This message has been edited by Maelstrom (edited 10-31-2002).]

[Kraxis]

Quote Originally posted by G0THIC-Lobster:
And also i watch this japenese old fashion (black n white in japenese) their was this dude which have his armour filled with arrows and i wonder why won't he die. But later he was head shooted but he still walk for a while and say something. Gees that was unrealistic and of course the other samurai was freaked out9well thats what i think, i don't know jap.)_ [/QUOTE]

An arrow to the head? Tough man!
But if you look at all kind of paintings of samurai you will see there are quite a few where they have been hit by several arrows and still fight on. But then again, the jap armour was designed for proction against arrows rather than melee (remember the old samurai weapons were the bows, and preferably mounted). Also notice that the men on the paintings are bleeding from all the hits, and were often they are white in the face... They would die soon after of bloodloss.
See the movie RAN, there you will see several cases where men are hit many times before dying.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Wavesword]

The scene of "man gets hit by lots of arrows and has time for 600 facial expressions ranging from astonishment to constipation" has been replayed many times but its foremost exponent is the critically acclaimed ending to Throne of Blood. I have a soft-spot for the trivute to this of Boromir in LOTR however.

[Hakonarson]

Yawn.

At leastr I have posted 1 reference, unlike the longbow apologists.

Look I know I'm getting toey, but i REALLY dislike all t4he hoopla that people put into longbows.

An arrow only incapacitates when it hits a vital organ - otehrwise it causes little shock, no bruising and considerable pain and bleeding.

Wide points such as modern razor-hunting points do an awful lot of damage, but bow hunters aim to get within 30 yards of a stationary target to ensure hitting vital organs - the heart is perferred in the deer or pigs usually hunted down here because it is less "armoured" than the brain.

Also the bows from the Mary Rose did not average 150 lb!! They ranged from 88lb to 176 lb, with an average of 110-120 - here's a erference http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.html

(that's 2 references from me, none from anyone else!)

You see I AM an archer. Not that it's important to me in this debate because I have NEVER used an English longbow against a charging Knight, but apaprently it matters to some so I'll state my history: I've owned bows for about 10 years, I currently own a #48 laminated longbow, and I've used a 100 lb laminated longbow on a range - I'm 43, reasonably fit, and it was a bit of a struggle but do-able for 30 shots although my fingers were a little sore at the end despite a thick leather finger guard!!

I've only ever used compound (pulley) bows occasionally to see what they are like - otherise all my time has been on long- or recurve-bows, some of it with traditionally built arrows - feather flights hand glued and tied on, hand forged points, bone or no nocks, etc.

Now again I'll apologise for my tone, but I am sick of the longbow myths - that it was a super weapon that could penetrate plate armour with impunity, outranged everythign in sight, etc.

It was a heavy bow - like other heavy bows - it was usefull en-masse - there were other archers in the world that used heavy bows such as Janisaries and eastern horse archers, and IMO they weer at elast as "good" as the English longbow and there's much less mythical information about them!

Oh yeah - crossbow range and accuracy - there's a range of articles avaialbe on the web - http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/te...qq53/page3.htm http://www.geocities.com/monstonitru.../crossbow.html http://www.ausbow.com.au/design.html

And % killed figures for musket battles vs longbow are meaniningless - I presume you're trying to show that the longbow was moer lethal or something?

Yet you ignore the obvious causes of lethality - the butchering of incapacitated men in close combat - Agincourt for example is well known for archers knifing disabled men at arms through visor slits or gaps in armour, there's the relative lack of hand-to-hand fighting in gunpowder times, teh lack of butchery in pursuit (capture was much moer common) and various other aspects that don't suit whay I presume is your contention.

Sure guns were easier to train people on - but so were crossbows.

and gunpowder weapons wer emost certainly NOT easier to handle!! rofl - go get your money back for those books!! The problems with powder storage, ignition, guns blowing up, short range, poor accuracey and the like were huge - just keeping match burning and readily available without detonating powder prematurely took an effort!

By comparison bows and crossbows are literally childs play!

I have nothing against longbows - just the myths that suround them

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Yawn.

At leastr I have posted 1 reference, unlike the longbow apologists.

Look I know I'm getting toey, but i REALLY dislike all t4he hoopla that people put into longbows.

An arrow only incapacitates when it hits a vital organ - otehrwise it causes little shock, no bruising and considerable pain and bleeding.

Wide points such as modern razor-hunting points do an awful lot of damage, but bow hunters aim to get within 30 yards of a stationary target to ensure hitting vital organs - the heart is perferred in the deer or pigs usually hunted down here because it is less "armoured" than the brain.

Also the bows from the Mary Rose did not average 150 lb!! They ranged from 88lb to 176 lb, with an average of 110-120 - here's a erference http://www.primitivearcher.com/articles/warbow.html

(that's 2 references from me, none from anyone else!)

You see I AM an archer. Not that it's important to me in this debate because I have NEVER used an English longbow against a charging Knight, but apaprently it matters to some so I'll state my history: I've owned bows for about 10 years, I currently own a #48 laminated longbow, and I've used a 100 lb laminated longbow on a range - I'm 43, reasonably fit, and it was a bit of a struggle but do-able for 30 shots although my fingers were a little sore at the end despite a thick leather finger guard!!

I've only ever used compound (pulley) bows occasionally to see what they are like - otherise all my time has been on long- or recurve-bows, some of it with traditionally built arrows - feather flights hand glued and tied on, hand forged points, bone or no nocks, etc.

Now again I'll apologise for my tone, but I am sick of the longbow myths - that it was a super weapon that could penetrate plate armour with impunity, outranged everythign in sight, etc.

It was a heavy bow - like other heavy bows - it was usefull en-masse - there were other archers in the world that used heavy bows such as Janisaries and eastern horse archers, and IMO they weer at elast as "good" as the English longbow and there's much less mythical information about them!

Oh yeah - crossbow range and accuracy - there's a range of articles avaialbe on the web - http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/te...qq53/page3.htm http://www.geocities.com/monstonitru.../crossbow.html http://www.ausbow.com.au/design.html

And % killed figures for musket battles vs longbow are meaniningless - I presume you're trying to show that the longbow was moer lethal or something?

Yet you ignore the obvious causes of lethality - the butchering of incapacitated men in close combat - Agincourt for example is well known for archers knifing disabled men at arms through visor slits or gaps in armour, there's the relative lack of hand-to-hand fighting in gunpowder times, teh lack of butchery in pursuit (capture was much moer common) and various other aspects that don't suit whay I presume is your contention.

Sure guns were easier to train people on - but so were crossbows.

and gunpowder weapons wer emost certainly NOT easier to handle!! rofl - go get your money back for those books!! The problems with powder storage, ignition, guns blowing up, short range, poor accuracey and the like were huge - just keeping match burning and readily available without detonating powder prematurely took an effort!

By comparison bows and crossbows are literally childs play!

I have nothing against longbows - just the myths that suround them[/QUOTE]

I dont understand if your resources are given here to help your argument or hurt it. Internet sources are not the most reliable BTW. Off the top of my head here are three books that I just finished reading -

1. Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages; the English experience.
2. Agincourt Osprey Campaign Series (Osprey provides a good series of historical campaigns from any period of warfare, check them out).
3. The English Longbowman (the author is Donald Fetherstone and he provides background information about longbowman as well as their famous battles).

You seem to be arueing your case based on the weapon itself. What you dont understand is that the Longbowman himself was half the weapon. Sure you may be able to use a longbow just like Uncle Jed and his website. However theres a difference between the good ole boys and the Welshmen who used the longbow. For them the longbow was their life, this was no hobby or something they've been interested in for 10 or even 20 years. The welsh used the longbow from a very early age. The point you seem to be missing is the actual weapon while very powerful was useless in the hands of amatuer archer. As the previous post says strong evidence shwos of the medieval longbowman having shoulders strained from overuse of the weapon.

Yes the handgun was unwieldy but it was simple to train a man on.

I dont understand your other arguments. On some points you simply seem to be ageeing with me and others I dont know what your trying to say.

If the longbowman was just an English myth, try explaining that from the countless french sources from the hundred years war battles themselves, even french eyewitnesses have described the effectiveness of the weapon.

I am sorry If I am blunt or perhaps rude in saying my points, I really dont mean to be. I just dont understand where your argument is coming from. The only edivent thesis I find is that you say the longbowman were not all that great according to legend. Unfortunately your sources simply show the power of the longbow and do not coincide with your case.

Feel free to bring up any other posts, I really dont want to make you feel like your un-wanted on this topic.

[Papa Bear!]

Harkonason in the very articles you cite the crossbow is described as achieving similar speeds and similar shooting results for a xbow draw of over twice that of a bow.

How does this in any way support your views? It seems like a heavy bow is magnificently more effective than a heavy x bow, even from the readings that you provide. (I'll admit I didn't through their entirety, but a quick skimming provided such comparisons as I mentioned above)

If anything, I'm just now confused, what exactly is it your trying to prove?

[edit: oh, and if you do hunt with a bow, then you of course appreciate the impact an arrow has on a creature. I don't think people can stalk to within 30 yards of most big game, javelina yes, but not deer or elk unless there are alot of factors on your side. That all said, my point in bringing that up is that, though you're right a shot to heart is the only sure way to bring an elk down, the other shots do considerable damage to the animal they hit. So, despite your condescending attitude I think you either know what I am talking about, or you are simply full of poop. For this particular reference, (to modern hunting), we're comparing xbow bolts to arrows, and I think if you have any experience at all, you'd recognize that arrows would compare quite favorably. And they would in fact have a knockdown punch of a sort not at all different to an xbow.

If only a shot to the human heart will do when shooting an arrow at someone, are we to believe that the archers at agincourt were simply extremely good shots, and they managed to pierce many thousands of hearts with their arrows that day? I think not, I think other injuries did just fine.]

[This message has been edited by Papa Bear! (edited 10-31-2002).]

[Maelstrom]

Here are some good articles (and refs to refs) on longbows.

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/...w/longbow.html

http://www.beast.pp.se/history/longbow.html

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/lalonde/SCA/arrow.html


[This message has been edited by Maelstrom (edited 11-01-2002).]

[Richard the Slayer]

Quote Originally posted by Maelstrom:
Here are some good articles (and refs to refs) on longbows.

http://www.student.utwente.nl/~sagi/...w/longbow.html

http://www.beast.pp.se/history/longbow.html

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/lalonde/SCA/arrow.html


[This message has been edited by Maelstrom (edited 11-01-2002).][/QUOTE]

K, thanks, we'll give them a look.