Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KodKod]

And the purpose of your hyperbole was to illustrate a point not borne out in fact: that a longbow is deadlier than a crossbow.  Gosh, why would that produce pushback?

Le sigh. I hate having to explain hyperbole. What I was saying is this: The longbow itself is not necessarily more deadly than the crossbow, but it's a powerful weapon put into the hands of soldiers who spend a good portion of their lives training, as you said. You can stick a crossbow in the hands of a group of levy and train them to use it, but even if the weapon is, for the sake of argument, exactly the same in all respects, they're not going to perform as well as proper soldiers. They are not, by any means, useless, nor am I suggesting that eleventeen thousand crossbowmen couldn't take down six longbowmen.

It was only until more advanced guns came along when finally poorly trained marksmen could outperform experienced longbowmen, and they had to be phased out.

[FrisianDude]

-snip-

Hmm, let's see... Agincourt is the most famous victory for the longbow in history, studied by huge numbers of actual historians who actually know what they're talking about. You, on the other hand, are some random anonymous nobody on a video game forum, and yet you think you can come along and say "nah, the longbow didn't matter at all."

Bull-fucking-shit. This isn't just some guesswork being done, this isn't what we think might have happened. This is documented, studied history. The effectiveness of the longbow is equally documented and studied. By notable professionals!

That's not to say that not everything you have said is false. Could the longbow penetrate plate armour? No, but we already KNOW that and it doesn't change anything. I tell you what, why don't you write a thesis, get it published by a noteable academic journal, and then you might have credability enough to argue your case.

It might be nice if you tried to read what I said. I did not say the longbow did not matter, I said it didn't matter as much as you blithely assume out of some misplaced nationalism. Besides that, if you must go all 'haha on the internet no-one knows what they're saying' then I'd like it if you actually QUOTED and/or linked to those mythical actual historians who say those things so conveniently close to your opinions.

That said, I don't understand why you'd even USE that argument. I never claimed to be anyone but a 'random anonymous nobody on a game forum.' I AM that, and in that function I posted my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps you don't like people saying things you don't entirely disagree with, but it might be an idea not to take it personally. Because I argued, relatively rationally, that I think some people overestimate the longbow and you immediately attack my 'credability'[sic].

You are right though, I have little credibility. I can say, and be honest, that I'm a 22 year old man-child studying to become second grade teacher of history in the Netherlands. Slightly less anonymous now, does it help? Of course not, any claim I'd make to credibility can be swept away because everyone can say what they want on a forum. And will. Everyone will say what they want on a forum. And if what they say is not something you agree with clearly you must throw a bitch-fit riddled with fallacy.

Tell you what, why don't YOU write a thesis about how the longbow made archers and crossbowmen look 'like kids shooting nerf guns' and see if any publications carries it.


Edit; holy shit, trying to discredit actual historians? I am not doing anything of the sort. I was merely saying that, in my opinion, you aren't quite right about the crossbows. Which means I'm disagreeing with you. That's not even discrediting, and you're not an actual historian.

[dreiche2]

Lol, no.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Guys, the bickering tone is unnecessary and doesn't help your argument nor makes you look cool or anything. It's perfectly possible to have a polite discussion about this.

Speaking of which, if you want to continue it: there seems to be a disagreement about facts and/or the opinions of historians on the matter. The way to resolve this is to give references.

[OcelotTango]

Also repeating crossbows exist, and I cant say I have ever seen a repeating bow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

[Dragula]

Dwarves can use short bows.

[Loud Whispers]

Le sigh

^{...
That close...}

Anyways...

Also repeating crossbows exist, and I cant say I have ever seen a repeating bow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

Repeating crossbows were meant to be a last line of defense, meant to slow down attackers long enough for infantry to take out targets with the sword.

That said, longbows vs arbalests, very difficult comparison. How many mounted crossbowmen have existed in history?

Both have pluses and negatives, neither are absolutely better or worse.

Stop arguing.

[FrisianDude]

Guys, the bickering tone is unnecessary and doesn't help your argument nor makes you look cool or anything. It's perfectly possible to have a polite discussion about this.

We are having a polite discussion, haven't called eachother 'noob' even once!

Also repeating crossbows exist, and I cant say I have ever seen a repeating bow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow

IIrc those lacked the stopping power to pierce armour. Mostly used as a way to turn peasant infantry into pincushions in China, no?

[Vanaheimer]

Your bog standard hunting bow is more than sufficient to kill people. Well more.

**** yes. there was a hunter a few years back in NZ who got hit in the shoulder with a modern hunting arrow. they got him to the hospital ok... but they were not able to stop the bleeding.
a modern hunting arrow with a bodkin is a fearsome thing.

Happens a few times every year. People think bows are somehow less lethal than guns without even thinking.

A bow with a 70 pound draw (fairly common) will put a sharp arrow the best part of the way through your body. A dull arrow will shatter bones.

And on the whole armour debate thing:

The common thought is indeed that a longbow couldn't pierce steel plate armour. Guess what happened when the French thought that was true? They got massacred. I think you guys are underestimating the sheer power of a yew longbow firing an oak arrow.

[Loud Whispers]

Guess what happened when the French thought that was true?

No, they didn't think it wasn't true. Chivalry existed for a reason.

[KodKod]

It might be nice if you tried to read what I said. I did not say the longbow did not matter, I said it didn't matter as much as you blithely assume out of some misplaced nationalism.

Well one of us is certainly making assumptions.

That's not even discrediting, and you're not an actual historian.

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the people who dedicate their lives to studying and researching this shit. You want me to dig out some proper books by those fellows? Because it's not all that difficult and I'm sure you could do it yourself if you were all the interested, and last time I checked the overwhelming majority of the English army at Agincourt, which was rather small, was made up of longbowmen. That's why the victory is attributed to them, not the scant few footsolders that the English had with them.

Tell you what, why don't YOU write a thesis about how the longbow made archers and crossbowmen look 'like kids shooting nerf guns' and see if any publications carries it.

Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Jesus H. Fuckedy Christ, hyperbole!

[Loud Whispers]

hyperbole!

exaggeration/satire

[FrisianDude]

Stop hiding behind hyperbole! Of course it's hyperbole, my entire posts were basically 'you are exaggerating' !


Fie, I'll admit the nationalism remark was a gaffe; it was intended as being witty but ended being half-witty.

[KodKod]

If you understand that it's exaggeration then why the fuck are you taking it so bloody seriously, you know, when the whole point is that it's not meant to be taken seriously?

Fuckberries, you'd think I'd collectively slandered everyone's mothers by the way people are getting needlessly defensive.

[Vanaheimer]

Guess what happened when the French thought that was true?

No, they didn't think it wasn't true. Chivalry existed for a reason.

IIRC there were several years between when people thought the longbow would no longer be effective and Agincourt.

[FrisianDude]

If you understand that it's exaggeration then why the fuck are you taking it so bloody seriously, you know, when the whole point is that it's not meant to be taken seriously?

Fuckberries, you'd think I'd collectively slandered everyone's mothers by the way people are getting needlessly defensive.

I was getting the impression YOU were being overly serious and defensive. Yet both of us weren't particularly serious. Hm. Truce?