Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thenightgaunt" data-source="post: 5520382" data-attributes="member: 6673567">Good reference there. I found them on Youtube. Mike helps answer some big questions.  part 2[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnPcyGjYZmc&feature=related"]YouTube - Weapons that Made Britain: The Longbow (Part 2)[/ame]The longbow needs 150lb pull to fire, but it's only when the target is within 20 meters that the longbow arrows even dealt a serious wound to the unhardened breastplate. So unless close, not much punch to them. .  part 4[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUQAFQfZFO0&feature=related"]YouTube - Weapons that Made Britain: The Longbow (Part 4)[/ame]Reference to Brittish kings passing laws to produce good bowmen. The training bit shows that after a day's intensive training, the people can just about hit a big target at close range. Not a great feat, but as that seems to be the real lethal zone, not bad either.  part 6 [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFEorohRiZ4&feature=related"]YouTube - Weapons that Made Britain: The Longbow (Part 6)[/ame]I like the coverage of crossbow technology here. Not at 3:40 the belt and claw mechanism which speeded up reload times. Though, it does present a more realistic view of the weapons. Crossbows were more expensive and the weapon of specialists. A bit different than the D&D ideal with the crossbow being the weapon of the masses (low damn, crappy usage) and the longbow being the powerful weapon of a specialist.  Part 7 longbow v crossbow[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85CcSgnDgPo&feature=related"]YouTube - Weapons that Made Britain: The Longbow (Part 7)[/ame]I like this. The results were interesting. Especially the bit about crossbowmen using what are basically tower shields. The results: the longbow fires 2x as fast as the crossbow. 8 a minute vs 16. longbow, which had better range. And though the crossbowman was tired from the exertion, I note he didn't ask the longbowman how he was feeling.  Then again we have actual costs in this video. (I'm a bigger fan of Conquest)[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpsKrs1yww&feature=related"]YouTube - Conquest-Medieval Crossbow - Part 2[/ame]Crossbow at 41 pennies, and 4000 bolts at 240 pennies. The more advanced crossbows that used steel in the bows themselves were very expensive. But how much did a Longbow cost in comparison?? I found one site that mentions actual cost, stating "In 1483, the price of bowstaves rose from two to eight pounds per hundred" <a href="http://www.dougmccoy.us/ELB.html" target="_blank">The English Longbow</a>Since a pound was about 240 pence, then a longbow stave would be about 4.8 pence. Though that's just for the materials to produce a longbow, not the finished product.  I love the weapon comparison at 4:00Results: at 20 yards all weapons well do against armor except the shortbow. 40 yards the machlock rifle did great, the longbow hit the face, but the crossbows couldn't penetrate. 60 yards the longbow missed, the crossbows hit but didn't penetrate, and the matchlock ripped it open. 6:00 the real issue. Longbow and Crossbow same killing power at same range (best in 60 yards), crossbow fired slower but required less training.  Then again, here's the aiming issue covered.[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpuVK1jwMIA&feature=related"]YouTube - Conquest-Medieval Crossbow - Part 1[/ame]At 3:20 it starts with the payoff at 5:00. The bowman gets tired and can't keep holding the bow taunt while aiming, so he misses. The Crossbowman hits first time, no effort. Also, crossbowmen can hide behind cover and shoot. Longbowmen don't really have that option all that much.   So it seems that for accuracy, ease of use, and cover you go with a crossbow, for rate of fire it's the longbow. But then both sucked at long range. The big thing then would be cost. Anyone know the actual cost of a Longbow in the 1300's? And can cite the source? That'd help a hell of a lot.</blockquote>

Verification