Is older really better

[Xue Sheng]

The Chinese repeating crossbow was invented about 400 BCE, and was in continuous use until the end of the Boxer Rebellion (mid-1800s).

 

[Orange Lightning]

The Chinese repeating crossbow was invented about 400 BCE, and was in continuous use until the end of the Boxer Rebellion (mid-1800s).

That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows.

I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot?

In any event, it's got nothing on the Flying Guillotine. xD

 

[Xue Sheng]

That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows.

I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot?

In any event, it's got nothing on the Flying Guillotine. xD

Other than they exist I do not know much about them, did see a demo once with a reproduction that was pretty cool but that is about it

there is a Wiki link that talks a little about them though Repeating crossbow - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That's awesome. Nice craftsmanship. I forgot about repeating crossbows.

I'm curious now. Do you know how they were used? As in, were large units equipped with them or were they for officers? Personal defense? Sieges? What kind of armor did they need to go through? How far did they shoot?

I have just read a book about the "repeating crossbows".

The repeating crossbows was invented while the riffle's bullet and gun power still had to be loaded through the front. While the old riffle could only be effective within 150 yards, the repeating crossbow could be effective within 300 yards. Also the repeating crossbows could be loaded by using the foot. it could be loaded much faster than the old gun power riffle. The repeating crossbows were used mainly to against the horse back soldiers. You have 3 lines of your crossbow soldiers. Those 3 lines took terms to stand up and shoot when the other 2 lines were down on their knee while the enemies horse soldiers were running toward your.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Actually the earliest archeological find of a repeating crossbow appears to be from the 4th century BC from the Spring and Autumn period which is long before gunpowder

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Actually the earliest archeological find of a repeating crossbow appears to be from the 4th century BC from the Spring and Autumn period which is long before gunpowder

You are right, it was invented much earlier. But it was heavily used during the early gunpowder era.

 

[JPinAZ]

There is one other thing , fighting oriented ,practical people will go to the place where they can results in a short time and where results are measurable . Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts . People who want to fight or to be prepared for fighting understand that training process will not be easy and it will be painful . In most of traditional clubs I have visited people never did sparring , heavy bag training , situational training , sports fighting , but they are full of stories about "internal" powers and great ancestors .

Let's not forget that Chinese republican army adopted western boxing as a regular training program because they realized boxing can train people to fight in significantly shorter period than traditional arts .

I think it is a misunderstanding of the principles of WC and it's training methods if someone doesn't think you can build quick skill in WC - that is one of the reasons for it's design in the first place.

While I would agree that today we don't see a lot of cases that support this in many WC schools, that doesn't mean it can't or isn't being done. And while I also feel that to really understand the system in it's depth and width takes many years, you can still train a WC fighter with drills based on basic WC principles and mechanics with similar results (as your example of boxing) in similar amount of time. It's all in the approach and how you train.
Now, will this type of fighter be a teacher as a result? Most likely not without the in-depth understanding of the system. There is a big difference between quickly developed WC san sau skills and complete WC system concept/principle understanding. But the same can be said for a boxer or most anyone else who develops 'fighting skills' in a short amount of time...

 

[Orange Lightning]

Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.

 

[Drose427]

Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.

Ive never heard this before, but i wouldnt be overly surprised to see WC somewhere in police hand to hand training.

Similar things happen currently and did in the past in Korea and Japan leos and militaries with TKD/Hapkido and Karate\Judo

 

[elder999]

. The crossbow was more expensive harder to make. It couldn't be used as effectively on a horse, if at all.

Have you ever fired a bow mounted? I have.

Have you ever fired a crossbow mounted? I have.

With a bow, a right-handed archer is almost entirely confined to shooting to his left. A left handed archer is similarly confined to shooting to his right. A crossbow can be fired more easily to either side. Both require both hands to fire and reload, so there's no advantage there-the only real advantage to a bow is speed.

Again, it depends upon what you mean by "effective," which, in this context, I'd define as arrows or darts on target and degree of penetration (damage.)

I know that I took a feral hog much more effectively with my crossbow than I would with any of my bows, though I have to say that next time I'll bring a rifle....maybe a muzzleloader, but a rifle, nonetheless....

Mounted archers generally could be overcome by foot-archers, and crossbowmen generally have been used against mounted archers through history: the Crusaders used crossbows against Mongol and Turkomen horse archers to great.......effect, and the Chinese also used crossbows against the Mongols.

So, again, I don't know what you goddam mean, and, apparently, neither do you....again.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Have you ever fired a bow mounted? I have.

Have you ever fired a crossbow mounted? I have.

With a bow, a right-handed archer is almost entirely confined to shooting to his left. A left handed archer is similarly confined to shooting to his right. A crossbow can be fired more easily to either side. Both require both hands to fire and reload, so there's no advantage there-the only real advantage to a bow is speed.

Again, it depends upon what you mean by "effective," which, in this context, I'd define as arrows or darts on target and degree of penetration (damage.)

I know that I took a feral hog much more effectively with my crossbow than I would with any of my bows, though I have to say that next time I'll bring a rifle....maybe a muzzleloader, but a rifle, nonetheless....

Mounted archers generally could be overcome by foot-archers, and crossbowmen generally have been used against mounted archers through history: the Crusaders used crossbows against Mongol and Turkomen horse archers to great.......effect, and the Chinese also used crossbows against the Mongols.

So, again, I don't know what you goddam mean, and, apparently, neither do you....again.

The heavier draw weights for war crossbows would require epic strength to draw when mounted without the muscles and tools you could use on the ground. Versus the bow, which can still be drawn the same way even in the highest draw weights. Although, yeah, the crossbow has more maneuverability in aiming mounted than the bow.

I define effectiveness as the most damage in the smallest amount of time for the least amount of effort. Bows weigh less, are easy to make and carry, and can shoot faster. I'm don't know factually on this last point, but I think crossbows can beat bows in penetrating power.

This point with the hog has nothing to do with historical war. Although, thumbs up on that.

This bit at the end doesn't have a beef with me. I said "There are differences in each that would make one of them the better choice for different things." That end bit is just examples on that point. And my opinion remains unchanged that, overall, the bow is a better weapon of war because: - it's cheaper, lighter, faster, better mounted, and can be carried easier. That isn't to say they both have things they're going to better at than the other, or like they're aren't situations where one would be more useful than the other.

 

[elder999]

The heavier draw weights for war crossbows would require epic strength to draw when mounted without the muscles and tools you could use on the ground. Versus the bow, which can still be drawn the same way even in the highest draw weights. Although, yeah, the crossbow has more maneuverability in aiming mounted than the bow.

As I posted, historically, the crossbow was more effective, and, with the invention of the pushbar and ratchet mechanisms for drawing the bow, the drawbacks (see what I did there) that you've pointed out were largely negated.

Mostly, recurve bows, or composite bows for mounted archery simply weren't (and, in the modern era, mostly aren't) of "the highest draw weights."

In both cases, for a single rider (the earliest known mounted archers, the Assyrians, around 800 B.C., are depicted as using two riders, with one controlling both horses and one shooting) the reins must be put aside so that the bow can be manipulated with both hands-making the only real advantage for the lighter recurve and composite bows to be speed of fire. Mounted archers were usually used as skirmishers, wherever they were found, throughout history-and, as I posted earlier,usually defeated by archers on foot, whatever sort of bow they were armed with.....

The point with the hog has everything to do with "effectiveness," something you don't seem to understand.....

 

[Xue Sheng]

Isn't Wing Chun taught to the Chinese police force? I've heard and read that, but I can't seem to find a link on the subject now. Outside of Ip Man's involvement with the police.

Chinese police are taught a police version of Sanda/Sanshou

Wing Chun was used to trained Stewardesses on one of the Chinese Airlines

 

[elder999]

So, not to derail to much more, but for clarity's sake, I thought I'd offer a few more "bow vs. crossbow" (older v. newer?) basics:

The crossbow is more effective in that it can deliver an arrow at greater speed with more penetration, and also has a more effective range-it is also easier to aim and to fire from cover. All things being equal, a skilled archer will deliver a better grouping with a crossbow than a compound, recurve or longbow.
The only significant "advantage" the last three offer is in reloading for a second and third shot-generally, the more conventional bows will get three shots delivered to one of the crossbow's.

Orange Lightning also mentioned context: warfare.I've already mentioned the use of cover, and how the crossbow has an advantage there, but let's consider how the bow was used in warfare: with the exception of mounted archery, archers would fire in volleys from a distance, on a parabolic path-they would rain arrows down on opposing troops, not so much "aiming," as mass firing and hoping for the arrows to find a target. They were used in this fashion to take advantage of their range.....range, where the advantage again belongs to the crossbow. In fact, the only reason we don't really read more about the use of the crossbow in combat is that it was quickly supplanted by firarms.....a standing group of archers with crossbows could position themselves out of range of conventional bows, and deliver volleys on target with impunity, negating the disadvantage of slower rate of fire.

 

[Orange Lightning]

Mostly, recurve bows, or composite bows for mounted archery simply weren't (and, in the modern era, mostly aren't) of "the highest draw weights."

Alright, you have me there.

So, not to derail to much more, but for clarity's sake, I thought I'd offer a few more "bow vs. crossbow" (older v. newer?) basics:

The crossbow is more effective in that it can deliver an arrow at greater speed with more penetration, and also has a more effective range-it is also easier to aim and to fire from cover. All things being equal, a skilled archer will deliver a better grouping with a crossbow than a compound, recurve or longbow.
The only significant "advantage" the last three offer is in reloading for a second and third shot-generally, the more conventional bows will get three shots delivered to one of the crossbow's.

Orange Lightning also mentioned context: warfare.I've already mentioned the use of cover, and how the crossbow has an advantage there, but let's consider how the bow was used in warfare: with the exception of mounted archery, archers would fire in volleys from a distance, on a parabolic path-they would rain arrows down on opposing troops, not so much "aiming," as mass firing and hoping for the arrows to find a target. They were used in this fashion to take advantage of their range.....range, where the advantage again belongs to the crossbow. In fact, the only reason we don't really read more about the use of the crossbow in combat is that it was quickly supplanted by firarms.....a standing group of archers with crossbows could position themselves out of range of conventional bows, and deliver volleys on target with impunity, negating the disadvantage of slower rate of fire.

I agree with all that, except for the bit about the crossbow being more efficient. I'm not saying you're wrong. I agree on all the technical and historical aspects (it's not like they can be debated. They're facts. ), and yet disagree on this point about efficiency.
Both weapons express there potency differently. My primary argument on this is simply how much harder crossbows are to make, buy, maintain, and carry, compared to the bow. The materials are harder to find and forge, and more difficult to fix on campaign. With a bow, you get more for less, outside of it needing more training. To equip an army, these are serious considerations.

The Longbow replaced the crossbow in this example. It won The Hundred Years War for the English. Agincourt in particular, is famous for the longbow winning the day against mounted knights, infantry, and crossbowmen. They were greatly outnumbered. The king Henry V made a law that required all able bodied men to arm themselves with bows and to practice with them. He also outlawed games that would take away from daily archery practice.
A huge population of peasants were turned into a powerful force with a treated stick and a string. I would call that pretty efficient.

Archery - its the law

Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If your targets are farther away, then yes, the crossbow will shoot farther and be the better choice. Not so if you're....not...farther...away. This is a matter of tactics. Not weapon potency. The crossbow is also better with penetrating. So if you're facing lots of heavily armored units, then point for the crossbow. If you're facing not quite so heavily armored units en mass (pretty normal for history. Most people couldn't afford the best armor), then the bow will bring down more targets than the crossbow.
Which one is the better choice is situational. One being used more or less than the other is a matter of tactics and what you need to fight against. Due to the arguments stated above, I would still say that the bow is more efficient, but not necessarily more or less potent. In this way, my opinion is that the benefits of arming your army with a bow outweigh the benefits arming them with a crossbow, overall. That isn't to say the bow is an overall "better" weapon. That's just a matter of contextual relevance. Different weapon, different usage.