crossbows are superior to longbows
if you disagree you are literally perfidious Albion
>>28038904
checking those numbers m8
anyway
crossbow useful for short range combat
longbow - useful for long range combat
Crossbows are better if you have more money than labor.
Longbows are better if you have more labor than money.
England happened to be a poorfag nation that had to use a peasant levy instead of mercenaries.
>>28038906
It's not that expensive to build a crossbow
Depends on the situation.
Next.
>>28038907
>what is metal
>>28038907
>It's not that expensive to build a crossbow
It is compared to a longbow. A longbow is literally just a carved stick and a string and a functional longbow can be built in a single afternoon by a rank amateur.
>>28038910
>A longbow is literally just a carved stick
Are you fucking serious? You needed a skilled bowyer with the proper curve/shape and had to get yew which was expensive and being depleted rapidly, they had to import it towards the end of the hundred years war
>>28038905
I thought that Crossbows having a shorter range then longbows was just a meme
>>28038911
>yews were the best bows
Huh. So that explains RuneScape fletching
>>28038912
Depends, early crossbows it would be true, but once you get to more advanced ones with more drawweight then yeah
>>28038904
English longbowmen could fire 10-14 shots a minute,possibly making them more effective in battle.
>>28038915
>fire
>>28038904
Depends on the context. Are you some guy standing on your farm who just found out some pissed off highwaymen were rolling through? Go for the crossbow.
Are you someone who has time to train and are attempting to defend some sort of contentious ground? Longbow.
>>28038915
>accuracy
>armour penetration
Then again crossbows could only barely do 2 in certain situations.
The main benefit of crossbows was the same as muskets, didn't require much training to use adequately.
>>28038911
>You needed a skilled bowyer with the proper curve/shape
No, not for bare functionality. Of course a bow made by an amateur in a hurry is shit compared to a bow made by a professional but it's still more than capable of ruining someone's day from a considerable distance. How many bows have you built, sempai?
>and had to get yew which was expensive and being depleted rapidly, they had to import it towards the end of the hundred years war
No, they didn't _have_ to use Yew. It was just widely considered to be far and away the best wood for bow staves to such an extent that they went to the trouble of importing it rather than use what other woods they had left.
>>28038919
Both are wrong though. The loading mechanism of a crossbow and a musket are way harder to opperate than a bow. Aiming is also not that easy and needs time to adjust.
>>28038921
But you could learn how to reload, aim, and shoot in an afternoon whereas the longbow required a childhood of training, not to mention the strength and muscles required to efficiently use a long bow. A fucking child could use a crossbow, ask Richard the Lionheart.
>>28038920
Someone who isn't a bowyer can't make a longbow, he'll just make some piece of shit that barely fires. There's a lot of experience and knowledge needed to make a functioning bow of any sort.
It isn't simply a "carved stick with a string".
>>28038923
>Someone who isn't a bowyer can't make a longbow, he'll just make some piece of shit that barely fires.
So do you just not understand what the word amateur means? Almost everyone had some idea of how to build a bow; that doesn't mean they were good at it. You can learn how to make a shit-tier bow from a stave in an afternoon.
>There's a lot of experience and knowledge needed to make a functioning bow of any sort.
Right.
>It isn't simply a "carved stick with a string".
Then would you care to name the other necessary components of a longbow?
>>28038919
Its more of a side advantage, especially since a force more elite than you can choose to fight you at longer distance if they can aim better.
>>28038904
ever hear of the Battle of Agincourt :^)
t.henry v
>>28038926
>muh invincible longbows
nice meme you have there perfidious albion
>>28038904
Niet
>>28038904
Guy on the left is looking real gangsta
srsly looks too much like a baseball cap
>>28038904
>weapons have equal range
>both can penetrate plate (inb4 muh history channel documentaries) [1]
>crossbow rate of fire is a couple times a minute at best, longbow rate of fire is unlimited and depends purely on your skill
Honestly, there is no reason to pick the crossbow ever unless you're a limp-wristed, skinny-armed faggot who can't pull 150 plus.
>>28038927
>Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers, Mauron, Auray, Cravant, Verneuil, Herrings
Yeah, Patay was the exception that proved the rule.
[1] Clifford J Rogers, "The Efficacy of the Medieval Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries" in "War in History 5" (1998): pp. 233-242 and Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy, "The Great Warbow" (2005), passim.
>>28038904
crossbows are easier to use than longbows. with crossbows you don't need to order your peasants to train every sunday (and then have to enforce that shit)
>>28038910
>A longbow is literally just a carved stick and a string
fuck you
>>28038923
>fires
you have no idea what you're talking about.
>There's a lot of experience and knowledge needed to make a functioning bow of any sort.
I cut down a couple saplings the width of an adult's big toe when I was 8. Cut the bark off and put it in the basement for 4 years.
Later, shape epoxy them together and you have a 50 lbs bow.
Hell, have you ever seen a fucking bush or survival bow? Use fucking google if you need to.
>>28038920
>No, not for bare functionality.
Well we aren't talking about shooting rabbits in the woods. We are talking about military grade weapons.
>>28038930
>Yeah, Patay was the exception that proved the rule.
Not really.
Cavalry could easily mow down archers if they weren't fortified and defended by infantry. A volley of arrows alone could not bring a cavalry charge to halt.
>>28038906
But it's easier to train a clueless peasant how to shoot a crossbow than a longbow with good accuracy. Like how it's easier to teach someone to shoot a gun than a bow.
>>28038910
>A longbow is literally just a carved stick and a string
nigga u dumb lol
>>28038932
>>28038937
Please, tell me the other components necessary to assemble a functional longbow. I'll wait.
>>28038934
Better than nothing if you need one and don't have one. But apart from that, the whole point of this argument has been that longbows are much more simple to build and therefore cheaper - and it doesn't get much more simple than what is literally a carved stick and a string. Someone with a small level of skill can make a bow in a day using a pocketknife; I'd like to see someone do the same for a crossbow. Crossbows shit on the longbow as far as pretty much any performance metric except rate of fire is concerned but you have to shell out for the privilege because of the relative complexity and the fact that they tended to be much more susceptible to the environment.
>>28038938
>conflating a longbow and any old bow and arrow.
>>28038921
This
>>28038938
So everyone knows about sapwood and heartwood, also being able to make a functional 50 lbs =/= a 100lbs+ draw weight bow that is not going to lose power or completely fail after several weeks
>>28038940
Ok, there are so many things wrong with this, your implying that the 'complexity' aka number of steps is equivalent to the skill needed to operate at basic proficiency, I own black powder muzzle loaders, anyone can learn to load after pretty much one demonstration, the ability to pour a measure of powder down the barrel, ram a ball/with or without a patch onto of the powder and prime the lock, if we're talking flintlocks, or fit a bolt and wind/crank/pull back the string on a crossbow, requires so much less time to learn, than the time needed to develop the muscles and technique for using a bow
and for muskets i would argue that the potential accuracy is less than for crossbows or for longbows
>>28038940
arr rook same
>>28038940
The difficulty is not with loading but with keeping the projectile at 'full power' while aiming and releasing, look at modern compound bows, they reduce the weight that needs to be held while aiming, which is non-existent for crossbows and guns, try shooting 30 shots from a bow and see how difficult it is to sustain the accuracy of the first shot as it would be for a crossbow
aka crossbows are for plebs
>mfw bowmen boast about their rate of fire.
>>28038921
Crossbows and guns are much easier to fire. Longbows have heavy draw weights and require lots of training. It's a lot harder to replace a longbowman than it is a musketeer.
>>28038924
>Then would you care to name the other necessary components of a longbow
Yew. A shape which gives the bow the curve. Proper tools to hull and carve the wood. A proper knowledge on how to string the bow and treat the wood. Are you honestly saying anyone can make a military grade bow of +90lbs?
>>28038933
>50 lbs bow
We're talking about war bows here dumbass, nobody cares about your fucking anecdote, go make an actual bow to use in battle, then come back. It's pretty fucking easy to make a handcannon (pipe, powder, ball), but I don't see people manufacturing Mauser rifles out of their garage.
>>28038930
>both can penetrate plate (inb4 muh history channel documentaries)
Proofs? Armor was tapered to deflect, of course it could be penetrated, that wasn't the point. The right angle and your bow is useless.
>crossbow rate of fire is a couple times a minute at best, longbow rate of fire is unlimited and depends purely on your skill
What the fuck are you on about? Longbows were fired in volleys, archers weren't medieval snipers.
>>28038941
This anon seems to be the only one who knows his shit
>>28038944
>Implying that thing could penetrate a sheet of wet paper
>>28038946
You mean chinese armor
>>28038918
>accuracy
>armour penetration
Those are important at times, but a heavy volume of fire has a lot of tactical importance, even if every shot isn't a 'one-shot-one-kill' situation.
>>28038938
>Someone with a small level of skill can make a bow in a day using a pocketknife;
Christ. I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Not just any wood will do and it takes a good bow to kill a human. Bows take more training and you aren't going to train a bowman only to give him a bow that probably won't kill anyone and probably break in the middle of battle.
>>28038945
>Proofs?
I literally included a citation. Feel free to consult the sources.
>archers weren't medieval snipers.
I didn't say that they were. I only said you can loose way more than two arrows a minute with a longbow.
>>28038938
>Please, tell me the other components necessary to assemble a functional longbow. I'll wait.
A lifetime of training that leaves the weilder deformed
>>28038912
A smaller projectile definitely means that you'll do less damage at long range.
>>28038939
>dodging the question
>>28038941
>So everyone knows about sapwood and heartwood, also being able to make a functional 50 lbs =/= a 100lbs+ draw weight bow that is not going to lose power or completely fail after several weeks
Again: functional =/= good
>>28038945
>Yew. A shape which gives the bow the curve. Proper tools to hull and carve the wood. A proper knowledge on how to string the bow and treat the wood.
None of those things are components of the bow itself.
>Are you honestly saying anyone can make a military grade bow of +90lbs?
No, I'm saying that it's fundamentally much more simple to construct a longbow than a crossbow.
>>28038949
>Christ. I really don't think you know what you are talking about.
I've made several bows myself; it's a great hobby.
>Not just any wood will do
Of course; you need a properly seasoned stave.
>and it takes a good bow to kill a human.
I disagree. A crappy bow will certainly be less efficient at it, but it will still be lethal.
>Bows take more training and you aren't going to train a bowman only to give him a bow that probably won't kill anyone and probably break in the middle of battle.
Did I ever say that? I've been discussing the bow itself and what it takes to make a functional example.
>>28038951
Makes for some interesting skellingtons, though.
Crossbows are better in a siege, especially if attacking. Also if you don't have enough trainer archers/don't have enough men for a proper archer volley crossbows work better.
Trained longbowmen are better in a straight up battle though. Crossbows are more "snipery" weapons.
>>28038953
>No, I'm saying that it's fundamentally much more simple to construct a longbow than a crossbow.
Not really. Once you've got the idea down, they're quite easy to mass produce. Also bows take a long ass time to train, crossbows don't.
>>28038955
I'm not denying that both are fairly simple, I'm arguing that longbows are relatively much more so. They're so simple that they pre-date recorded history.
>>28038955
> Also bows take a long ass time to train
No, one can learn to accurately shoot a bow in a single weekend, even little kids can do it.
On the other hand, accurately shooting a _60-80lb bow_ used in war takes lots of regular practice by a healthy adult male, while accurately shooting a crossbow can be taught to any pleb in a couple of hours and take almost no physical effort and provides better armor penetration.
Bows are better weapons, but crossbows are easier to use and therefore they are better for equipping armies, as less training is required.
>>28038905
>it's a bitch to reload
>short range
niga
>>28038950
>I literally included a citation
Your first citation has nothing relevant to the topic. Your second one has no page numbers and it's a 560 page book. I can already tell you just pulled the shit from Wikipedia but I'll go ahead and pursue you on your bullshit
Simply put: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ
> I only said you can loose way more than two arrows a minute with a longbow.
The fastest man could, but you're hindered to the rate of your slowest man. And I'd very much like a citation for this
>>28038953
>I'm saying that it's fundamentally much more simple to construct a longbow than a crossbow.
>in a fucking discussion about the longbow and crossbow
Are you daft? So what if anyone can make a shitty 50lbs bow? This is a discussion about the effectiveness of the crossbow, and you come and tell me some bumbling idiot could make a shitty low poundage bow as if that proves anything.
>>28038960
>This is a discussion about the effectiveness of the crossbow
>>28038907
>>28038961
>>28038904
>crossbows are superior to longbows
>>28038962
I was just pointing out that cost was introduced into the discussion almost two days ago.
>>28038963
Even with that part of the discussion it was still about the Longbow and Crossbow, not some idiotic anon's anecdote about making shitty bows
>>28038962
If you had 10 years to prepare a force then longbows>crossbows
if you had one year then
crossbows>longbows
>>28038960
>accuses me, wrongly, of using wikipedia for information
>posts a YouTube video
Wew, nice job armchair historian
Look, I'm sorry you couldn't navigate my sources. I'd offer to scan the relevant pages for you, but frankly I don't want to. It isn't worth the trouble for a potato like yourself. Maybe try a bit hard to acquire physical copies of them? Because I have them on my bookshelf, and I assure you they're nothing like that. Save for the length of Great Warbow. You're right about that. It's a big book, with big words for adults in it. Maybe you couldn't handle it. Perhaps it's best if you stick to your YouTube's?
Also, you put a lot of significance on the idea of volleys, but the reality is there is no concrete evidence that's how medieval archers worked. The truth is we don't know how archers were commanded. I'd recommend you some discussions on the topic, but you really seem disinterested in the credible publications I've referred you to.
>longbow
Cheap(relatively as both ammo and weapon require less time and skill to make), simple to operate. At shorter ranges sometimes capable of penetrating mid-heavy armor. At longer ranges capable of penetrating light armor. Best used en masse against enemy archers, horses and light infantry.
>crossbow
Penetrates heavy armor effectively at mid to close range. Best used to kill heavy troops ie Knights. Long reload time and relative expense of ammo limits use to high-accuracy shots (stationary targets or approaching vertically only)
>>28038966
>literally copy pasted wiki citations
>I totally have this book and can post it but won't because im lazy
>ad hominem
okay anon whatever makes you happy, rule brittania lmao
Your first citation only makes mention it killed people in plate armor, not that it pierced it. If you watched the video it falls in line.
Oh you're using an amerifat historian on european medieval warfare, just thought I'd let you know that
>>28038944
+able to be used by starving peasants
+fast fire rate
-incredibly low penetration
-incredibly short range
-required large amount of bolts to be produced that most will be wasted anyways
-unable to be properly aimed since it fires from the hip
-unable to penetrate virtually any armor
Pros don't really seem to outweigh all of the cons.
>>28038910
>>28038938
this is bait
>>28038967
Stop thinking real life is a video game.
Longbows require a lot of strength to draw, and unless you have a great deal of practice with one you won't be very useful. The advantage of a longbow is that it can alternate between very fast volley fire or very accurate long distance shooting. An expert longbow archer can shoot 6 arrows for every bolt loosed by any crossbow you care to name, and can hit a man-sized target reliably at over 100 meters, sometimes double that depending on the bow and the archer. Overall, longbow archers are hard to replace because they require years to train and season, but their adaptability makes them excellent irregulars or formation archers.
The main advantage of a crossbow is similar to that of a firearm: almost anyone can use one with almost no training. Their effective range is 20-40 meters usually and even the fastest reloading models can't keep up with archers for volley attacks. You make up for that with sheer numbers. Unlike archers, who require training and practice (especially longbow archers), you can train up a regiment of crossbowmen in a few days. They won't be winning any archery medals at the Olympics, but they'll mow down ranks of infantry or cavalry just fine.
>>28038970
>>28038971
The challenge is still open: name any necessary components of a longbow that aren't the bow itself or the string.
>>28038973
The same could be said for a marble statue, but marble statues are not easy to make.
>>28038910
>a functional longbow can be built in a single afternoon by a rank amateur.
damn son
10/10
>>28038927
THE BLOOD ON LA HIRE'S SWORD IS ALMOST DRY
>>28038976
Was thinking of this senpai
Fastolf is my favorite unit with his dumb-ass portrait and all.
anime
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiXHImU4Yk
It explains some basic differences between a bow and a crossbow.
And the reason why european crossbows had such a short range was very short power stroke. Chinese crossbows had a much longer power stroke.
>>28038926
the effectiveness of english longbowmen at agincourt is highly debatable. what really won the day was the poor battlefield conditions which essentially made the french knights immobile in all that mud.
Anglofags thinking longbow can penetrate plate armour.
>this unhandy n33t that doesn't realize you could make a D shaped longbow the old fashioned way with a seasoned 72" length of trunk hardwood 1.75"x1" a rasp, and a cabinet scraper.
>or to go full stone age, a length of split straight grained seasoned hardwood and a a course grit stone
>or that you can crank out a flatbow in about 20 minutes with a tablesaw, a cabinet scraper, and some sandpaper
>this Vidya inspired fag thinks draw weight magically has to do with complexity
>>28039141
>Anglofags thinking longbow can penetrate plate armour.
Some weapons exist just to force your opponent to adapt to them.
>>28038906
> It's easier to train peasants to use a cross bow than a long bow.
> The longbow didn't require daily practice and a lifetime to master.
> Virtually all longbowmen were part of a mercenary company, or household guard.
The longbow was the professionals weapon. Crossbows are for peasants.
Using a longbow practically deformed the user's skeletal structure.
No thanks.
If it rains crossbows are fucked, there is no way to keep the stings dry. Maintenance of a longbow was so damn easy.
>>28038904
If you have enemies wearing heavy arnor, the cross bow is perfect for that. If every one is running around in leather, chain mail, etc. The bow can easily penetrate that armor., with quicker reload time, that is better suited for that.
In all reality, a army mixed with both would get you best results.
>>28038904
It's a very unchristian weapon. Only those idol-worshipping Seres on the other end of silk road use them.
>>28038912
Yes it is.
>>28038930
>studied French
>can do a /k/ pun in French
>will be pointless
Ils leur ont mis la Patay Can someone finish me?
>>28038912
Crossbows fire heavier projectiles.
