No need for a cite, except maybe the fact that the distance record for bows is usually set by footbows (crossbows that brace with the feet while you’re lying down.) Harry Drake - Wikipedia
Long and composite bows don’t go farther than half a mile. Drake’s footbow went 1.8 kilometers.
Tilt-up shooting is only effective if you have a lot of archers than can shoot volleys and if the rate of fire is high. Crossbows don’t have that rate of fire, that’s why they are more effective as castle/fort defense weapons where they are protected by archers and direct frontal attack. but they can shoot with greater power and accuracy, even from akward positions (prone, kneeling, through slits and appertures.)
Well, I have my own dumb notions that took decades to undo. For instance, as a kid I thought there was a continent underneath the northern ice cap. It was only in college that I realized it was ocean underneath. NB: I majored in geology. :smack:
Well, it looks like no one shot a recurve bow offhand farther than 500 meters, and that’s in modern times. What other proof do we need? Your premise was wrong off the bat. It’s not so much the type of projectile than the draw weight. Offhand bows simply cannot match crossbows in that aspect.
I had physics professors teaching this as late as 1985.
Has anyone ever actually done the experiment of putting a weight on glass and seeing if it “flows?” My old teachers said that this would happen, including the glass flowing “around” and encircling the head of a nail, if weight were put upon it.
is meaningless to me, I cannot find the term ‘winded’ described anywhere, please fight my ignorance. Also, your explanation for why it doesn’t shoot as far ‘It’s just shot in a ballistic trajectory while a crossbow is almost always shot line-of-sight’ doesn’t make sense either as both can be fired both ways. I made the mistake of guessing your assertion was ‘in antiquity, the longbow’s range wasn’t as great as a crossbow’, which I disagreed with, to challenge that a comparative analysis of weapons from the same time period is necessary.
Perhaps we are talking past each other and shall continue on as two ships passing in the night.
Sorry, ‘winded’ was my term. I meant crossbows that had such a heavy draw weight that it required some winding mechanism like a windlass or a stirrup at the front to allow the shooter to brace it down with one foot and use the strength of both hands and back muscles to draw the string.
It’s this simple: we’re talking about the range of two different weapons so you equalize all variables except the crucial one. In the case of arrow launchers, it’s draw weight. So use the same arrow, shoot at the same elevation (45 degrees) and see which shoots farther. It’s the more powerful bow. That’s it. Now I’m telling you a longbow couldn’t possibly have a draw weight greater than 150 pounds because, heaven knows, few humans can pull that hard. But a crossbow with a windlass or a footbow can be drawn well past 200 pounds.
I already answered why crossbows in battle were not shot in a ballistic trajectory: because this lacks accuracy and it’s compensated by having several archers who can reload and shoot reasonably fast. That’s not possible with a crossbows. The slow rate of fire requires you have tomake each shot count, so you shoot at close range, line-of-sight. And that’s best done in a fortified position.
It looks like the cathedral windows being thicker at the bottom is not proof of this. Some windows are thicker at the top, or at the sides. Conclusion: manufacturing inefficiency is all. So it seems there’s no case of glass objects “flowing” into a flat puddle on their own weight. Applying pressure on glass or any substance for that matter is something else. Anything can be deformed given enough heat and/or pressure.
I’m still searching for reliable stats on medieval crossbow draw strength. I agree a user can get more power with a winch and gear system than any human can produce with their own arms, to generate that draw strength from a smaller bow (a cross bow was a third of a longbow) requires considerable advances in metallurgy.
So, still looking.
You are talking about a few different things at the same time. For this discussion fortification is irrelevant, but in bringing it up you seem to concede that a crossbow capable of drawing past a longbow is completely unsuited for battlefield combat. Accuracy is also irrelevant, but since you bring it up ALL ranged weapons use ‘ballistic trajectory’ since ALL missiles fall at the same rate due to gravity.
Well there you go. Steel bows are usually harder to draw.
That’s because you’re applying ceteris paribus wrong. You get a confusing answer. You are questioning why crossbows were not usually shot in the battlefield tilt-up when clearly they can be. They were, at Crecy and Agincourt, to disastrous effect. That’s why I didn’t even touch on those. I narrowed it down to the crossbow’s optimal application, until superceded by the musket. Again, I admit the crossbow did not completely disappear as a field weapon before firearms.
To cut to the real issue, which has a longer range, and how to verify it, I already explained. Some things are so obvious that official cites are counter-productive.
Eh, range isn’t everything. As Sitnam indicated, crossbows typically have a shorter draw length, which means that for the same draw weight (force), they produce less impulse but more force. Since impulse tends to stabilize a projectile, that means they are slightly less accurate at longer ranges.
A greater detriment to their accuracy comes from the fact that arrows are typically longer than crossbow bolts. The longer distance between the projectile’s balance point and the vanes/fletching gives more leverage to the aerodynamic forces stabilizing the projectile. Net result, crossbow bolts tend to precess at longer ranges and lose accuracy.
However, the two main reasons they were inferior in the press of battle are, as several posters mentioned, their much lower rate of fire, but also the fact that tyhe horizontal orientation of the bowlimbs means you can pack fewer crossbowmen into the same frontage of the line of battle. Once you can pack significantly more archers into a line of battle AND they each fire several times faster, everything less pales in comparative effect.
massing enough shooters is not as important as range and rate of fire per shooter. at crecy, deprived of their pavises for protection, the genoese could shoot neither far enough nor fast enough to counter the english long bows. it’s really just a bad choice ordnance and wrong deployment by their commander.
I think this another one where science changed its mind. It’s not the fault of the teachers (or your memory).
A lot of taxonomics has been changed recently thanks to DNA analysis and cladistics. For example, IIRC, hyenas are no longer part of the dog family, but are more closely related to cats.
You can tilt it up. In fact, you can shoot one straight up - clean out of sight. You had just better be ready to run when it comes back into view and you had better be pretty quick about deciding which direction to run.
That was something I learned while I was young, too. Fortunately, dad didn’t find out we were playing with his crossbow while he was at work.
It was still being taught in Duplin County public schools (NC) as late as 1996. I remember being told about the thick-bottomed cathedral windows as supposed proof.
I still remember trying to correct a teacher in elementary school who claimed that carbon dioxide is lighter than air because it is a part of air! She wasn’t pleased with me correcting her and I wasn’t pleased that she refused to listen to my correction. A teacher (might have been the same one - I don’t recall) also insisted that “eclipse” and “ellipse” were the same words; one was just a mispelling of the other (I don’t remember which was supposedly correct).
Even pecans are sort of iffy. Wikipedia list them as true nuts in one section, but in another section includes them with almonds and walnuts as drupes, which are not true nuts.