A useful war bow would be between 80-115lbs for a long bow. 60lb draw is more of a hunting weapon.
In contrast, crossbows can typically attain over 180lbs to 300lbs of draw strength in combat, 150lbs is only for hunting.
No one wore as much protection as the Hellenes.
Source please.
Source, becuase its not found in historical fact
From the developers of Rome: Total War. They have many long discussions about it
These same bows- recurved laminar were used in the west as well.
Yes, in the mediterranean. However, materials are different from region to region. In Asia, there is one particular material, bamboo, along with the horn and sinew of particular yaks used by the Mongols.
The development of crossbow technology is less than two centuries apart in China and Greece with references to a katapeltikon (crossbow like catapult) in 399 B.C vs 6th century B>C. in the regions around China.
No. That's a catapult. In fact that word is the source word for catapult.
Also.
"You are both right and wrong Megalophias. The weapon you refer to invented and used with limited success in ancient times in Greece is known as the gastraphetes. The weapon was similar to a crossbow in that it was a bow fired horizontally. That's where the similarity ends. The Greek bow was drawn by using a pair or more of hands grasping the bowstring and pulling it. In Greece, it was an improvement over the conventional bow fired vertically because it allowed for greater firing distance and impact power, but it had limited success because of the recoil that would occur from releasing the bow (which would knock the user(s) backwards). Being knocked over by yourself, during a battle, is not very good for your health as I am sure you can imagine. Anyways, the gastraphetes was NOT a crossbow by any measure. To say the gastraphetes was a crossbow is like saying a toy wagon played with by children is an automobile.
The crossbow was exceptionally advanced for its time (4000 years ago in China). It had interlocking mechanisms that drew on Physics' concepts such as a trigger lock, double hand crank, tumbler, and sear. It was a fully functioning "ancient gun". In fact, the enemies of the Chinese in ancient times called it the "bow gun". There was no recoil problem because of the rear sight, which allowed one to hold a crossbow and fire it comfortably at waist-level.
To close, not one gastraphetes has ever been found by archaeologists and its existence is primarily conjecture based on obscure writings. The gastraphetes, assuming its true existence, was not a crossbow by a longshot - at best it was a primitive ballista. On the other hand, many crossbows have been found in China dated at a far earlier time than the gastraphetes (~ 200 years by one estimate). One of the reasons, the Chinese discarded bulky plate armor (think medieval knights) early on in their history was because of their invention of the crossbow. A crossbow could easily pierce several sheets of metal at a distance of over 300 meters - wearing plate armor would be like saying "Kill me please". The crossbow with its many advantages over the conventional bow (increased accuracy, greater firepower, faster fire rate -> the repeating crossbow, Zhu Ge Nu) completely revolutionized warfare. But I digress.
I have dredged up some modern English sources. Though their credibility and knowledge are incomparable to the ancient Chinese sources (writing something 4000 years after something is invented tends to do that) they will have to do.
http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/crossbow.htm"
Yes, no one is arguing that you can train a crossbow man to hit a target easier than a bowmen. But trained vs trained, the corssbowman has no advantage in accuracy.
The thing is, it much easier to train a lot more people to be more accurate with a crossbow than with a bow. When you have a lot more people that can shoot, so is the probabilities that they will hit, as well as increased probabilities of discovering "hotshots" among the group.
Again hogwash.
Bow (English Long Bow from hundred years war)- notch- draw- aim- release- reach down to grab another arrow stuck point firs tin the dirt- repeat.
Crossbow- brace on ground, crank or span- lift- reach into quiver to grab a bolt- load- aim- fire- drop back to ground to begin the cycle again.
A mass of archers can fire 1 arrow every 3-6 seconds. 10-20 arrows a minute. There is a reason the arrow storm was feared. Now crossbow can match this rate of fire. And that arrow storm using plunging fire can reach hundreds of yards away.
The light hand crossbows were not an effective battlefield missile weapon. The draw was too light and the bolts too short to be effective. a 15 pound draw or some other light weight limited by the length of the span and materials is not going to reach very far.
No. With a crossbow, you can have people arming the crossbows separately from the shooter himself. The shooter does not necessarily be involved with arming the crossbow. With crossbows, you can have whole sets of crossbows prearmed, and just pick one up to shoot, while others keep reloading them.
Again no disagreement- massed crossbow armies are easier to create than an army of trained bowmen. But they trade that ease for things like rate of fire, plunging fire and accuracy.
Over a sustained period, a crossbow does not stress the arm like the bow would With a bow, you have to both aim and pull simultaneously, which adds the tension to the arm muscles. You don't have that with the crossbow. Crossbows unlike longbows can be preloaded, therefore can react much faster to a situation.
Tell that to the French at Crecy. English Yoeman with their traditional longbows not crossbows slaughtered the French nobility and their Genovese crossbow men.
"The English archers ? ?main role was to blunt the initial enemy onslaught, and this they did superbly. They were especially effective against horse; the men would have been better protected by armor. There is no evidence to show what proportion of French casualties were caused by archery, as against hand-to-hand fighting. Arrows, however, were not always fatal. Among his wounds, Philip VI suffered an injury caused when one hit him in the face, but this does not seem to have been serious. Interestingly, David II of Scotland would also be wounded in the face by archery later in the year. Like Philip he recovered.?"
The Battle of Crecy, 1346, ed. Andrew Ayton and Sir Phillip Preston Bart, (The Boydell Press, Suffolk, UK: 2005)
That might be the case, but it sinks your argument about the bows in the Mediterranean region since the most common Greek armor and an armor that stayed in limited use until the fall of Rome was the laminated linothorax. If the armor could not stand up to the demands of war it would not have been used. High humidity is more of a problem for non-laminate armors especially those using leather to bind pieces together. For example sewn on scales such as seems to be indicated by the terra cotta army.
Body armor is only tertiary or third line of defense. its not meant to take a direct thrust but to reduce the impact of glancing body blows.
the idea behind the linothorax, which is layers of fabric and metal is not uncommon through out the ancient world.
