Talk:Crossbow/Archive 1

message: This page links to "fletch", but the page for Fletch is about a novel and movie.  (It should probably either be unlinkified, or a second Fletch page should be created.)
I've changed the link so it goes to "fletching," which is the right page. 
Apol0gies 17:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: :while archers could not keep their powerful bows pulled for long periods of time.
This was added to continue the idea that crossbows are better than longbows. Yet, the argument provides no counterbalance, as to why longbows were better than crossbows. It is more credible left unsaid, the fact is Longbowmen could fire off a shot very fast. Longbows and crossbows were used for 100s of years neither was clearly the better weapon, unlike firearms which supplanted them both for example. The article is currently somewhat misleading in regards to the role of crossbows and longbows.
:the value of the crossbow came in its simplicity: it could be used effectively after a week of training
It was a complicated mechanical device that took training to master both in its use, and upkeep. It broke down often in particular in bad weather. Crossbowmen were a special breed, they didnt just appear after 1 week of training.
Stbalbach 23:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping bows pulled

message: Recent changes have changed the expression 'draw weight' to 'draw force'. Personally, prefer the former as I belive it is a traditional way of expressing the power of a bow - although perhaps this should be explained in the article. Of course, neither weight nor force is a true indication of the power of a bow as the energy stored would actually be a function of both the required force and distance.
:Yeah. From the drawings, it looks like the distance over which the string exerted the force was a lot less in the case of a crossbow than in the case of a longbow. That would tend to reduce the energy. However, it's a little more complicated than that, because the force isn't constant. If you draw the bow back to a distance x, the force is F=kx. The work done is the integral of Fdx, or (1/2)kx^2. It looks like the crossbows have roughly half the x of a longbow, but twice the F at that x, so their k is apparently about four times greater. A four times greater k at half the x would give the same work.--Bcrowell 07:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossbow: draw weight 

message: I have never heard of the crossbow NCstars FX-II... Can you please provide me a link?
I am really interested in hearing what a "shoulder-cock" is.
Yes, I concur too. What is a NCstars FX-II and how does a shoulder-cock operate?--KeyserSoze 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCstars FX-II 

message: The longbow was not a new weapon when it was so effectively introduced by the British. It was the skill of the british longbowman and their generals that made the longbow armoured-french-knight-killer. They were the masters of their art with deadly accuracy and excelent discipline. Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages, it´s how you use that counts.
But the longbow cant penatrate the armour of the french knights until the knight is 25 metres away.(Uber555 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be further qualification (and citations) as to what is meant by "armor" when referring to the penetrating power of medieval missiles (how's that for alliteration?); plate armor is not maille.  I'm skeptical regarding any missile's ability to penetrate the plate armor of the late middle ages, armor that swords and spears didn't penetrate, armor that mandated paradigm shifts in melee tactics (war hammers and maces became popular).
- unitl 16th century the most common version of armour was mail( various versions and  different thickness) and by missile peneteration we mean against these types of armour. From that time on plate armours became more frequent and of better quaility. The French knights during hundred years war wore plate mail ( but probably not all of them), but Britih knew how to shot them down ( killing horses, aiming for weaker places in armour, sheer number of projectiles launched against them). But helmets and breastplates were VERY difficult to penetrate, except at very close ranges or with specialised weapons. But not to be confused with impeneterable curiasses of the 17 century´s cavalary. They were often resistant to firearms!
Based on my info at Agincourt the bow didnt peice until close range but some french knights some got stuck  also the knights had steel armour btw and i was refering to plate armour(Uber555 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  crossbow vs. longbow 

message: Early on there is reference to arrows relying on lift and quarrels not but no explanation. In what I've read, lift isn't mentioned anywhere in arrow flight and particularly isn't relevant with a fletched arrow. Anyone like to add their thought?--Rjstott 10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight

message: To settle an edit dispute on the King Arthur (film) page, did the Saxon peoples use crossbows at around this time? I'm pretty sure that they didn't, and this is one more historical inaccuracy of the film (which purports to be a historical treatment). 203.131.137.90 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Saxons use crossbows in the fifth century A.D.? 

message: For crying out loud people, why is this so important? Why can't we  just say "probably invented in (what is now) China, may have been independently invented elsewhere." The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming either way, and sources differ. Megalophias 04:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we compromise?

message: Tom Harrison says in his explanation about the "invention of the crossbow in China"
"The difference in degree of certainty between the two sources has to do with the difference in situations of the two sources. The first source Zhao Ye is a source from or close to the time period in which the crossbow was actually invented (+ or - 200 years). The second source, by Needham, is contemporary and is nowhere near close to the time when the crossbow was invented."
And then he tells that archeological evidence supports the existence of crossbows in East Asia at 2000 BCE. So you have to state, that the source of Zhao Ye is not reliable at all and is absolutely not close to the time the first crossbow appeared. Simply a mistake of logic. This is the only historic source stating that the crossbow was "invented" in China (written after it was founded). Everything else is archeological evidence found in Eastern Asia. There you have to regard the circumstances that lead to archeological remains. Afterwards you have to state exactly to which culture the artefact belongs.
Especially compare it to the situation of similar examples (listed below, copied out of wiki).
China or Chinese did not exist 2000 BCE. But there was the Langshan culture, and the Chinese culture is its descendant. Although no archeological evidence is known, that they did invent the first crossbow. Simply impossible to prove. But you can say the oldest remains are found in East Asia on the continent.
Compare the statement "The crossbow was invented in China!" to these examples of fine research in wikipedia.
The sling:
The sling is an ancient weapon, the origin of which is lost in antiquity. It is certain that slings were known to Neolithic peoples around the Mediterranean, but it seems likely that the sling is very much older. It is quite possible that the sling was invented during the Upper Paleolithic at a time when new technologies, such as the atlatl and the bow and arrow, were emerging. With the exception of Australia, the sling became common all over the world, although it is not clear whether this occurred because of cultural diffusion or independent invention.
The bow:
(First possible depiction is from 15000 BCE in the Pyrenaeen./not mentioned in wiki)
The bow seems to have been invented in the late Palaeolithic or early Mesolithic. The oldest indication for its use in Europe comes from the Stellmoor in the Ahrensburg valley north of Hamburg, Germany and date from the late Palaeolithic Hamburgian culture (9000-8000 BC). The arrows were made of pine-wood and consisted of a main-shaft and a 15-20 cm (6-8 inches) long fore-shaft with a flint point.
The oldest bows known so far come from the Holmegård swamp in Denmark. In the 1940s, two bows were found there. They are made of elm-wood and have flat arms and a D-shaped midsection. The middle part is biconvex. The complete bow is 1.50 m (5 ft) long. Bows of Holmegaard-type were in use until the Bronze Age; the convexity of the midsection decreases through time.
The atlatl:
The atlatl (pronounced ät-lät-ŭl), or "spear thrower", is a tool that uses leverage to achieve greater velocity in spear-throwing, and includes a bearing surface which allows the user to temporarily store elastic energy during the throw. It consists of a shaft with a hook, in which the butt of the spear rests. It is held near the end farthest from the cup, and the spear is thrown by the action of the upper arm and wrist. A well-made atlatl can readily achieve ranges of greater than 100 meters.
Wooden darts were known at least since the Middle Palaeolithic (Schöningen, Torralba, Clacton-on-Sea and Kalambo Falls). They could be used up to distances of about 15 m with enough power to hurt or kill an animal. The atlatl is believed to have been in use since the Upper Palaeolithic (late Solutrean, ca. 18,000-16,000 BC). Most stratified European finds come from the Magdalenian (late upper Palaeolithic). In this period, elaborate pieces, often in the form of animals, are common. With a spearthrower, effective distances of up to 70 m could be reached.
:I could support the inclusion of something like, "According to Needham, the crossbow was probably invented in China," followed by other views by other scholars. Strictly speaking, Needham says "Chinese cultural area" rather than "China," as the user above is correct to observe. I think that level of specificity might confuse the casual reader, but it is more accurate, and if people prefer it I won't object. I suspect that it's basically pointless to talk with certainity about who invented something like the crossbow. From my reading, there seems to be substantial agreement among scholars that versions of the crossbow were independently "invented" (and "discovered" might almost be a better word) at different times and places. Tom Harrison Talk 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you suggest sounds reasonable enough, as long as it expresses the view of recognized scholars, and is supported by verifiable citation to their work. We must be careful not to do our own original research. Tom Harrison Talk 14:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  invention - logical mistakes in this opinion 

message: The way the Use section is put together seems heavily slanted on convincing the reader the crossbow is in every way supeior to the longbow. Also this article does not state how the longbow dominated over the crossbow during the hundred years war. 70.127.93.127 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slanted prose 

message: Statements about ancient inventions have to be regarded with great care, especially based upon the wide gaps in time and places between findings of archeological evidence. 
:Is this sentence necessary at all in a Crossbow article?
The claim that it is a Chinese invention is scientifically not appropiate, because one must have to refer to the historic cultural or political organisation. Oldest evidence of crossbows have been found in East Asia, dating from 2000 BCE. This means at this time the crossbow was known there, but the place and date of appearance is likely to be earlier and not necessarily in the same geographical area. Comparing it to the history of the bow, earliest depiction has been found in Europe, in the Pyrenaeen and oldest remains in Denmark. But no claim about the invention of the bow is made because of lacking scientific certainty. 
:Nice to see a contrast with bows, but it has absolutly nothing to do with this topic.
In Chinese history a written claim is made in 200 BCE (Zhao Ye: The Romance of Wu and Yue) about the invention of the crossbow in 500 BCE. But is argued, that this is misunderstanding based upon editing of history by later generations. It is more likely that it referred to a new trigger mechanism, besides the invention of doublebarreled crossbows. Unfortunately this led to the doubious claim of Chinese invention of the crossbow. To be politically correct and in regard of archeological evidence, you would have to state that the Longshan culture invented it, what is hard to prove.
:Longshan was never mentioned previously, leaving readers with no idea what you are talking about. The entire paragraph sounds like something that is against ancient inventions, not just crossbows. It is completely unnecessary in this article.  Olorin28 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hill tribes are considered Chinese nationals today in the People's Republic of China. Olorin28 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No I don't, because Seminoles invented the its bow when the United States had not exist. Nevertheless, the "hill tribes" are still considered Chinese. Some of them certainly became Chinese back when Crossbow was invented. Olorin28 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph 

message: I think it would be good of a picture of a modern crossbow. This article only has illustration and picture of ancient crossbow.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/e/e2/Armbrust-Schiessen.jpg/180px-Armbrust-Schiessen.jpgWandalstouring 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hi, I'm currently working on cleanup at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. In the paragraph below the crossbow diagrams, there's a sentence that reads "Bolts must be sealed with a proof to ensure their consistent weight", however there doesn't seem to be anything on the disambig page there that relates to this. Since I have no idea, could someone who knows what this means either explain it better in this article or (even better) write a new article for it? Thanks! BryanG 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (there is no WP article for "proof mark"). KarlBunker 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating [[proof]]