 | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, David Low writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> > > Following on from Dave's post on rifle modifications to carry a diver's • knife
> > > as a bayonet (which post I can't seem to find, sorry):
> >
> > It was in an email (that's why it's not here!).
>
> Yup that would explain it. Doh!
>
> > Looking forward to seeing this fearsome weaponry in action at the next
> > Brickwars!
>
> I'll certainly bring along a squad. I haven't decided whether to field them.
> I think I'm still better off with long bows.
>
> I seem to recall that historically crossbows replaced longbows because while
> they took longer to load aim and fire, any idiot could load a crossbow and
> fire it reasonably accurately.
Longbows were replaced by firearms, not crossbows, and that was primarily out
of disuse more than effectiveness.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Longbows were replaced by firearms, not crossbows, and that was primarily out
> of disuse more than effectiveness.
Cool.
How come longbows fell into disuse? And and how come we bothered with
crossbows at all?
I love finding out about this stuff :-)
Regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
IIRC crossbows were used because they were A LOT more accurate than
longbows.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> IIRC crossbows were used because they were A LOT more accurate than
> longbows.
Dare I say it - this isn't accurate. :-)
Crossbows are extremely accurate and powerful weapons, but more importantly
they are easier to be accurate with (point it at what you want to hit and
shoot). Longbows are accurate, too, but a lot trickier to use and require a
great deal of training to develop both the strength and skill to use it. But
as pointed out elsewhere, the crossbow did not supplant the longbow (it was
the other way around).
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.loc.au, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> Crossbows are extremely accurate and powerful weapons,
> but more importantly, they are _easier_ to be accurate with
> (point it at what you want to hit and shoot).
[emphasis mine]
I'd ben meaning to chime in on this,
but you seem to have covered what I would have,
so I'll just say this:
Crossbow - The *original* point-and-click interface.
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-P
Franklin
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.pirates, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> >
> > Crossbows are extremely accurate and powerful weapons,
> > but more importantly, they are _easier_ to be accurate with
> > (point it at what you want to hit and shoot).
>
> [emphasis mine]
>
> I'd ben meaning to chime in on this,
> but you seem to have covered what I would have,
> so I'll just say this:
>
> Crossbow - The *original* point-and-click interface.
Fancier models have a scrollpoint. <GD&R>
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.pirates, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> Crossbow - The *original* point-and-click interface.
>
> Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. :-P
>
> Franklin
Wise guy, hunh? I'll moitalize ya! (Point, click, thunk!)
Bruce
Hmmmm, what does this have to do with pirates? Ah, I know - I give my pirates
the odd crossbow. Adds to that proper motley crew look.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > Longbows were replaced by firearms, not crossbows, and that was primarily out
> > of disuse more than effectiveness.
>
> Cool.
>
> How come longbows fell into disuse? And and how come we bothered with
> crossbows at all?
>
> I love finding out about this stuff :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
> Still baldly going...
Crossbows were easy to use - there was a lot less training required. Years
less, to be specific. They were good in castle defense when rate of fire was
less important and a pre-drawn bow was valuable - as little time exposed as
possible. The most common crossbows (as opposed to the later windlass drawn
steel arbelests) were cocked by a claw holding onto the string at the archer's
belt and the bow pulled down with a foot stirrup, so it was much more powerful
than a short bow. The only real thing bad about it was it's rate of fire.
Further, they were in broad use before the English longbow came into use. And
the French did NOT trust their peasantry with longbows, unlike the English.
:-)
Longbows fell out of use by sheer laziness. They were still effective in
combat at the time, but people literally found other distractions and a long
enough period of peace that not enough kept up the old skills. "Shall we go
shoot at the butts, or 'ave a game o' skittles an' a beer?" Crossbows were
greatly replaced by longbows in England after the Welsh campaigns (it really
was the Welsh longbow, though a case can be made for them picking it up from
the Vikings, who had a fairly long and powerful bow). Longbows just withered
away on their own - kinda think of it as all those wimpy suitors that couldn't
string Odysseus' powerful bow, much less draw it.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> Longbows fell out of use by sheer laziness. They were still effective in
IIRC, there were still laws in place in England in Elizabethan times
that all the peasants had to spend a certain number of hours a week at
longbow practice, and there were practice grounds in the cities, but as
you say people got lazy and the laws were not enforced.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
Open Air Market: Limited edition kit
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-mrkt.htm
Craftsman Kits & Custom Lego models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
| | | | | | |
