Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 1164140" data-attributes="member: 5100">Wow!&nbsp; You're asking me to dredge up stuff from college.&nbsp;What I can say is that, yes, there is a significant difference between the longbow and a standard/short bow.&nbsp; I'm not sure of the physics of it all, but I suspect that it just isn't possible to create a shortbow that had the same pull.&nbsp; Either that, or the longbow, much like a modern compound bow, allows easier draw and a stronger release.&nbsp;One article I read said that the longbow even had better penetration (and accuracy, but that's a &quot;duh&quot;) than the gunpower weapons of the late Medieval/early Renaissance.&nbsp; This article claimed that the longbow contiributed more to the decline of heavy armor than did gunpowder.&nbsp;I've also been told by an Olympic-condender archer that the (long)bow is significantly more accurate than the crossbow.&nbsp; Something about the way a crossbow fires gives the bolt a wobble that throws off the aim.&nbsp; This is worse is heavier crossbows.&nbsp; Of course, the crossbow is a lot easier to get up to speed on, which is why it was a common weapon in armies.&nbsp;Anyway, the point is that the bow, especially the longbow, was the best personal ranged weapon of the period for a dedicated/trained archer.&nbsp; And the difference is quite real.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 1164140, member: 5100"] Wow! You're asking me to dredge up stuff from college. What I can say is that, yes, there is a significant difference between the longbow and a standard/short bow. I'm not sure of the physics of it all, but I suspect that it just isn't possible to create a shortbow that had the same pull. Either that, or the longbow, much like a modern compound bow, allows easier draw and a stronger release. One article I read said that the longbow even had better penetration (and accuracy, but that's a "duh") than the gunpower weapons of the late Medieval/early Renaissance. This article claimed that the longbow contiributed more to the decline of heavy armor than did gunpowder. I've also been told by an Olympic-condender archer that the (long)bow is [i]significantly[/i] more accurate than the crossbow. Something about the way a crossbow fires gives the bolt a wobble that throws off the aim. This is worse is heavier crossbows. Of course, the crossbow is a lot easier to get up to speed on, which is why it was a common weapon in armies. Anyway, the point is that the bow, especially the longbow, was the best personal ranged weapon of the period for a dedicated/trained archer. And the difference is quite real. [/QUOTE]

Verification