Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 14th, 2017, 06:55 PM   #51

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,048
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
We know that you are a China apologist. They doesn't change the limitations of the sources you are relying on.

You are an obvious fan of chainmail, a western invention. I never once dismissed your claims on chainmail by labeling you as a chainmail apologist or western apologist, nor do I brush off your sources with a single word without explanation. I expect the same respect in return.

Physical laws are not arguable. I am a Chinese apologist when people have racist double standard, I have been an apologist to other cultures as well. Perhaps some people don't see that because they aren't willing to argue as much with me about it when I am arguing in favor of their own culture.

Why don't we compare source limitations?

I have multiple reproductions(that you demanded), physical equations, and texts to back up what I am saying. The Caerphilly reproduction of the trebuchet even perform better than the textual claims. You have the claim of one individual who claim to have witnesses(no name written). Reproductions from professional crossbow makers perform far worse than that single textual claim, as Todd noticed. The crossbow maker don't know me, he has no interest in China, it's something he noticed by himself that Ralph's claims are exaggerated. Reproduction of the onager at Caerphilly, despite using a bigger machine, also perform worse than that textual claim from Ralph.

I also remember how you treated the SAME reproducer seriously when it appeared that his reproduction followed your line of thinking (it does not, the replica had less draw weight than the real thing by magnitudes). Now I give the exact same reproducer, and you call this source a limitation without explanation.

Now you call me an apologist, very classy. The guy you agree with has a history of making racist remarks to pretty much every culture but his own. When have I ever done that, to any culture, even once? I made nearly 5000 posts already, surely you can find even one time where I did that. Yet you call me an apologist but not him. You should treat everyone with the same standard. Or at least treat me like how I treat you. Right now you are not focusing on my sources, but on me, right?

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; October 14th, 2017 at 08:06 PM.
HackneyedScribe is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 14th, 2017, 07:08 PM   #52

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 7,926

Physical laws are infinitely arguable as long as they are theoretical.

English V French has been tested and proven in several dozen battles.

Longbow versus Crossbow has been tested in several counties across western europe when the armies ofall the major players were in their prime and filled with men familiar with their weapons.

English vs Chinese has never been tested and is unlikely to be ever put to a realistic test.

You have a choice of theoretical academic ego strokers or the sort of practical obsessive who works out with their bow but was born 500 years too late to be taught by the sort of combat experienced pro who used it as a tool every day so is instead filling their day with inventing what they think people 500 years ago ought to be doing.

Despite the fact people 500 years ago were sleeping in ditches and fighting for their lives against other people who were doing the same, not doing a few hours of uncontested target practice every day, going home to a warm bed and posting videos on youtube.

Most people who are posting on these subjects are giving a theory based on nationalist pride and a few cherry picked facts.

The only way to physically test any of it is to grab a hundred experienced tudor archers and a hundred chinese archers of a similar peiod and watch try and kill each other.

Otherwise its just theory.
Nemowork is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 07:09 PM   #53

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,048
Blog Entries: 3

Powerstroke gives more time for an arrow to accelerate, it is NOT just a theory. Just like how distance = time* velocity is not just a theory, it should be common sense. The equation I used is also used by modern crossbow law to legally limit the power of modern crossbows. It is also proven by reproduction, not to mention by all the bows and crossbows made.

I said nothing about whether Chinese archers could win against English archers. I said Han crossbows could fire a more powerful shot than a medieval crossbow of the same draw weight, because Han crossbows have around 19 inches of powerstroke and medieval crossbows have 5-6. That is all. It is common sense in both the archery world and crossbow world that powerstroke helps significantly in this, it is beyond reasonable doubt. It is a very basic physics concept that the entire world agrees with and I am amazed by the amount of pushback I am getting by it, and the pushback mainly involve demands for a reproduction. Fine, I've shown a reproduction, it is dismissed by attacking my character. And when other reproductions don't match their own claims, they dismiss these reproductions despite the fact that those same people were the ones demanding it.

Now it wasn't my intention to drag Chinese crossbows into this, as anyone can see in post 43 which mentions nothing about it. Bart and Howard dragged it out as an argument from other threads, so I used the opportunity to show that the stance they are adopting is double standard.

Last edited by HackneyedScribe; October 14th, 2017 at 08:29 PM.
HackneyedScribe is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 10:04 PM   #54
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2014
From: Queens, NYC
Posts: 966

Slightly off main topic, but on subtopic:

Chinese writers on crossbows were writing to inform and influence others. They expected their writings on crossbow performance to be taken into effect and used in battles and sieges. Any inaccuracy-e.g., exaggeration-would be held against them.

I assume Payne-Galwey had no reason to exaggerate. His reports will receive credence in the absence of solid proof of inaccuracy. I will suggest that materials may not have been exact repros, it's hard to get them just right.

As to the main topic-well, in the French theater, the longbow prevailed over the crossbow. That may have been, as Dan Howard points out, because in the one real battle they opposed, rain weakened crossbow strings while longbow strings were dry.
MJuingong is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 10:40 PM   #55

The Keen Edge's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: United States, MO
Posts: 419

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJuingong View Post
Slightly off main topic, but on subtopic:

Chinese writers on crossbows were writing to inform and influence others. They expected their writings on crossbow performance to be taken into effect and used in battles and sieges. Any inaccuracy-e.g., exaggeration-would be held against them.

I assume Payne-Galwey had no reason to exaggerate. His reports will receive credence in the absence of solid proof of inaccuracy. I will suggest that materials may not have been exact repros, it's hard to get them just right.

As to the main topic-well, in the French theater, the longbow prevailed over the crossbow. That may have been, as Dan Howard points out, because in the one real battle they opposed, rain weakened crossbow strings while longbow strings were dry.
I don't know enough about Payne-Galwey to make claims about his figures. But, I would like to point out that everyone has an argument to make and a bias to confirm.

In the preface of The Book of the Crossbow, Payne-Galwey states that he is writing the book because everyone knew and talked about the English longbow, but the crossbow had not been given the attention it deserves.

This is not evidence that Payne-Galwey exaggerated, but it does give him motivation to show the crossbow in a favorable light when compared to the longbow. He wants the crossbow to give someone pause before they start glorifying the might and importance of the English longbow.
The Keen Edge is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 10:49 PM   #56

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,104
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by aggienation View Post
A sheaf would have 24 arrows, that was the basic combat load of an archer in battle. However, if they were stationary, in a fixed fighting position expecting little movement, or manning a rampart in a castle, etc., they could have numerous sheafs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janusdviveidis View Post
I am not absolutely sure, but I think quiver would hold 24 and they usually carried 24 extra in some kind of bag. So something like 50 arrows, the rest would be coming from baggage train.
So, that baggage train, it wud hv been mostly ponies, I guess.

One more thing, I'm thinking of a country under foreign occupation & fighting back now, wud it hv been possible for some of their womenfolk to actually be trained to use longbows? Maybe a special-design variant. As kind of an auxiliary or support archer division, perhaps.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 10:55 PM   #57

The Keen Edge's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: United States, MO
Posts: 419

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
So, that baggage train, it wud hv been mostly ponies, I guess.

One more thing, I'm thinking of a country under foreign occupation & fighting back now, wud it hv been possible for some of their womenfolk to actually be trained to use longbows? Maybe a special-design variant. As kind of an auxiliary or support archer division, perhaps.
They could be, but the problem is that using proper warbows takes years of strength training and even training men to use the English longbow would take too long to put up any kind of fast resistance against invaders. Also, I a little skeptical as to how many women could be trained to pull beyond 120lbs.
The Keen Edge is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 11:07 PM   #58

Ichon's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: .
Posts: 3,131

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Howard View Post
We know that you are a China apologist. They doesn't change the limitations of the sources you are relying on.
That is rather bs brush off. Even if HackneyedScribe has apologist tendencies that bias does not equal the sources being wrong.

We could throw out European apologists for half the threads on here talking about how great this or that European thing is- from a certain general, technology, weapon, etc with far less support than HackneyedScribe provides.

Also far more than most at least HackneyedScribe attempts to follow what sources there are- criticizing sources is an important work of historians but flat out denying the validity of centuries of sources just because they might support something you do not personally believe is not professional in any context.

How much of what Archimedes was purported to do actually happened? So far there haven't been any working reconstructions of his most famous weapons vs the Romans but plenty of other devices credited to him do work and the stories told are probably based on something and seem even more fantastical than longer powerstroke on a crossbow.
Ichon is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 11:28 PM   #59

HackneyedScribe's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,048
Blog Entries: 3

Thank you, Ichon. It is appreciated.
HackneyedScribe is offline  
Old October 14th, 2017, 11:56 PM   #60
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,060

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
Physical laws are infinitely arguable as long as they are theoretical.
No, I am sorry, but a physical law is no longer theoretical. It is no longer a theorem.
Quote:
The only way to physically test any of it is to grab a hundred experienced tudor archers and a hundred chinese archers of a similar peiod and watch try and kill each other.
You are aware that a crossbow generate forces according to Newtonian physics right? The same crossbow drawn whether 100 years ago, or today, if done the same, generate the exact same forces. You don't need archers or crossbowman if you are talking about the power of the shot of a crossbow. You apply physics to it.
mariusj is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
advantages, crossbows, english, longbows



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On English longbows timtimwowo European History 46 July 10th, 2017 04:34 AM
Longbows in the Revolutionary War Menshevik Speculative History 42 February 7th, 2015 10:02 AM
'Recurved' longbows Phoenix Rising War and Military History 9 November 17th, 2013 08:19 AM
Horses and Crossbows - Teutonic Advantages HeirofAlexander Medieval and Byzantine History 4 May 8th, 2012 06:43 AM
Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order HeirofAlexander War and Military History 0 May 5th, 2012 12:23 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.