-- On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:30:46 Sean wrote: >Kat said: > >> That being said, I'm still not clear to what extent the crossbow (outlawed >> at some point by... the Pope? not sure... because it was so effective >> against heavy armor [so I have to ask here - was the crossbow really more >> effective than the longbow because of its massive draw weights, or some >> other factor?]) firearms, and rapiers each influenced the outphasing of >> heavy plate armor. > >I read somewhere that some archbishop, after watching a demonstration of the >crossbow, declared that it was the most terrible weapon on earth and that it >would end warfare completely. > >640k ought to be enough for anyone, right? > Actually, the main difference between the longbow and the crossbow is that the longbow required lots of training to use, since you had to get up the strength to use it. The crossbow, on the other hand, was easy to draw (well, easy is a relative term, you usually needed a crank mechanism or a foot pusher or...) by anyone, and could be fired by almost anyone, and required a great deal less training to use. And because you did use the crank, you could get a lot more poundage than your average longbowman could generally pull. So when you look at it, when you go from an age where skill and training counted in battle, to a situation where your average joe peasant can nail a trained knight from a distance with a weapon that wasn't all that hard to use or require great strength and long training to use...it can be a bit of an unpleasant shock to those nobles who wouldn't use such things. - Barb Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com