Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Musket vs. Crossbow & Longbow Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15  Next 
Author Message
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 7:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

yes, very true. just to sum it up, if a 14-15 century force of very intelligent, elite, and (very informed as to what in christs name is goin on) waded onto a (armourless) 18th century battlefield, it could have effective results against musket formations. if used correctly. (think super-moblie, anti-personel artillery).

jean henri- cannon definatly pierces armour, (btw, i am aware of breastplates stopping harquibuses and soforth) but there just seems. to be too little of it to make it obselete. 50 cannons, might be able to take out 50 files of troops, no matter what they are wearing, but thats simply not enough. and besides, modern soldiers continue to wear kevlar armour and ceramic plates, even though they DEFINATLY dont protect against artillery. if i were a soldier, and my armour protected me against most of the stuff flying my way, then id wear it. if you ask me, it was the 75. caliber matchlock musket, (very armour piercing), the proliferation of firearms in battles, (reducing, melee combat, where armour really shines) and its expense to the 18th cent. state supplying it to men (the 17th cent. new model army took a nice bite out of the economy to armour pikemen with just a B/B and helmet.) that did it in if you ask me.

"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 4:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Logistics is probably the mosty telling reason. How much woud it cost to outfit a hundred thousand men in breastplates? Also consider the amount of walking that these armies did. How practical is it to expect half starved men to march in musket-proof armour for weeks at a time?
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 4:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
yes, very true. just to sum it up, if a 14-15 century force of very intelligent, elite, and (very informed as to what in christs name is goin on) waded onto a (armourless) 18th century battlefield, it could have effective results against musket formations. if used correctly. (think super-moblie, anti-personel artillery).


Works as a " theoretical " tactical mental experiment but wasn't historically practical or at least didn't happen in our version of the " MULTIVERSE " of alternate realities: if one could drop/transport and control a 14th century force of longbowmen, heavily armoured infantry and heavy armoured knights and set them up in combat against a " surprised " 18th century army and also use good tactics/discipline and choose the place and time of battle to minimize the effects of 18th century field artillery, I think it would be a very effective force.

An 18th century general trying to do this based on the same theory would be faced with all the real World logistic and sociological problems of not being able to train a competent " elite " 14th century army and at best might be able to create a weak copy of one I think.

Oh, and I had this same idea a few years ago also and in discussions I think we sort of arrived at the same conclusions. Wink Big Grin

I do find these theoretical tactical comparisons of various armies sort of fun to imagine and discuss and I guess in a Sci-Fi fantasy context one could explore these types of things ...... Oh, and there is a whole genre of Military Sci-Fi, alternate Universe books that do this well and are a fun read.

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 5:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

These battles went on for an entire day or more. The longbowmen would run out of arrows in the first ten minutes. Why would 15th century heavy cavalry be more effective than 18th century heavy cavalry? As a side issue, how do you think a 15th century horse would react the first time it heard a volley of 50,000 muskets?
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 5:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Works as a " theoretical " tactical mental experiment but wasn't historically practical or at least didn't happen in our version of the " MULTIVERSE " of alternate realities: if one could drop/transport and control a 14th century force of longbowmen, heavily armoured infantry and heavy armoured knights and set them up in combat against a " surprised " 18th century army and also use good tactics/discipline and choose the place and time of battle to minimize the effects of 18th century field artillery, I think it would be a very effective force.

These battles went on for an entire day or more. The longbowmen would run out of arrows in the first ten minutes. Why would 15th century cavalry be more effective than 18th century heavy cavalry? As a side issue, how do you think a 15th century horse would react the first time it heard a volley of 50,000 muskets?


This is why this type of stuff stops being fun. Wink

I cheat ! My 14th century army in my mental experiment is armed like a 14th century army and has the weapons competence of seasoned 14th century fighters but I don't have to get all " realistic " about it and bring in all the psychological factors or issues like the horses being spooked by hearing gun fire for the first time etc ..... Not that your objections are not valid and could be important if the " game " was different. Wink

The 18th century army is at a disadvantage as they wouldn't be prepared or briefed on the strengths weaknesses and weaknesses of my 14th Century army ..... cheating again.

I'm just comparing mostly rates of fire and armour and better hand to hand combat weaponry of 14th century fighters in the melee after they get real close. The longbowmen might run out of arrows but the 18th century army might be decimated by the intense arrow storm and being unarmoured very vulnerable and the fight might not last as long. I would also have massive numbers of arrows for each bowman and not just what they could carry on themselves .... cartloads !

We have " played " this scenario before and I concede that bringing up more variables changes the results and trying for total realism to the " game " is taking it much too seriously.

A single very artificial theoretical battle is one thing a long campaign gives different results as each side evolves counters and one side takes advantage of things like artillery on the 18th century side.

The only real World comparison I can think of as far as asymmetrical warfare between advanced and more primitive forces might be the early successes of the Zulus against the British ! The Zulus could be compared to a Roman army fighting a mid 19th century army just at the end of the slower fire power of single shot breach loading firearms and early use of gatling or early machine guns.

The Zulus closing in fast in great numbers overwhelming better armed forces, but the British eventually prevailed !

Now, this is a different example than the one under discussion but I bring it up as a comparison of the type of interaction between vastly different military technology. Oh, and the Zulus where also similar to the Romans in being courageous and disciplined ..... tactically equal to the British in generalship and in some cases " better " but eventually ground down by superior technology and the weight of a dominant technologically World power and logistically superior foe.

Anyway, lets agree to disagree or that we are using different yardsticks in evaluating the merits or lack of merits of the idea: I'm not disputing your logic and you bring in some good point. Wink Big Grin Cool

Oh, I can let go of " my rules " and listen to your take on things with your " game rules " as this is also interesting and valuable as a discussion and it's certainly not fair for me to be making the " rules ". Blush Big Grin Cool

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 6:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

here, ill play be the realistic "rules". sending the 14th century horse first is a faulty tactic. this was proved even in the 14th cent. itself. smarter use would be to have the cav. endanger them, and force them to remain immobile in a line or square. then, once pinned down, have the longbow shred the static formation out of range of thier muskets. theoretically, they shouldnt even have a chance to use their muskets. and, as afar as spooking the horses, you specify 15 cent. horse. by this time, artillery was a prominent. feature in war. an artillery barrage accompanied by explosions and screaming men, would probably be just as terrifying to the horse as the loud bang of 50,000 muskets. Horses werent dropped in the 15 cent, so there must have been some medieval solution. and as far as heavy cav. effectiveness, I think that 15 cent. cav would slaughter the 18 cent. knights spent thier lives training for war. thier skill-at-arms was unsurpassed. their armour was impenetrable to the sabers of the 18cent. the only thing that separated the 18 cent. heavy from light was tactics (and maybe a breast/back in the case of ciurassers). Equiped with no armour, only hand weapons (also designed to strike foes primarily BELOW the horse) and vastly inferior trianing, 18th cent. heavy would be utterly slaughtered if pit against one another. just my educated veiwpoint.
"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Henri Chandler




Location: New Orleans
Joined: 20 Nov 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,420

PostPosted: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 8:07 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Another place you can actually see almost a meeting of these two types of armies is in 17th Century Poland / Ukraine / Lithuania. A weird mixture of hussars who are armed and armored almost like 15th Century cavalry, with Cossacks fighting as light cavalry and infantry skirmishers armed with sabers, light maces and spears and using 15th Century Czech Hussite wagon tabors with hook-guns and swivel mounted falconets, then Gustavus Adolphus Swedish soldiers armed way ahead of their time with the latest breech loading cannon firing grapeshot and matchlock arquebus in disciplined ranks, Tatars sometimes armed almost like the 13th Century with composite bows etc., and Ottoman Jannisaries with their latest cannon, grenades, giant siege mortars and long barreled muskets etc.

Was watching those polish films based on the Henryk Sienkiewicz novels ... they have very realistic historical kit etc., and at certain points you couldn't tell if what you were watching was in the 7th century, the 14th, or the 17th... it's fascinating period.

J

Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum

Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Tue 18 Aug, 2009 6:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

yes, the 17th century is one of my favorites for this exact reason. there was still significant melee combat, heavely armed and armoured cavalry, armoured infantry, light cav, light infantry, alot of new technologies, and the brilliant generals and disciplined formations, and the culture of the rennaisance. add the new worlds first real settlemants (outside of "slaughter and enslave the locals" mindset) and powerful rulers and fine artisans, de Vauban and his forts, along with the ottomans and constant warfare, along with massive troop numbers, it seems that this time combines the best elements from the early modern renn. and 18th cent. organization. it's in my top 5 cent....
"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Ed Schelzel





Joined: 22 Jun 2008

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 7:23 am    Post subject: Re: re         Reply with quote

Rod Parsons wrote:
I had Erik in mind for the maille. With the linen canvas that many layers of 18 oz would be as inflexible as a cardboard tube.
I would use no more than 10 oz or 12 oz but the 14 oz heavy linen has the tightest weave.
I like the idea of <2 linen / 9 fustian/ 2 linen> for the sleeves and doubled (2 sandwiches) for the torso, but I am awaiting advice from one of the curators at the Royal Armouries.
Rod.




So... anyone know what became of this? What was the results of his tests?


Reading this thread was akin to reading a fast paced short story. I was disappointed to find there was no 'ending'.
View user's profile Send private message
Gottfried P. Doerler




Location: Tyrol, Austria
Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i think, the superiority of muskets over crossbows/longbows lies within the flight of the projectile.
if you just shoot at a range of 30 or 40 meters (or yards [i think this is roughly equivalent]), theres little difference.
but if you have to shoot at greater distance, the musket is in advantage due to the flat trajectory of the bullet, whereas the arrow has to be aimed at higher angle. its like a cannon vs. a mortar.
so you can still aim directly at your target 150 yards away with the musket, with bow and arrow you have to approximate the ballistic curve, and this reduces accuracy enormous.
View user's profile Send private message
David Evans




Location: Rotherham, West Riding
Joined: 09 Sep 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 2:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gottfried P. Doerler wrote:
i think, the superiority of muskets over crossbows/longbows lies within the flight of the projectile.
if you just shoot at a range of 30 or 40 meters (or yards [i think this is roughly equivalent]), theres little difference.
but if you have to shoot at greater distance, the musket is in advantage due to the flat trajectory of the bullet, whereas the arrow has to be aimed at higher angle. its like a cannon vs. a mortar.
so you can still aim directly at your target 150 yards away with the musket, with bow and arrow you have to approximate the ballistic curve, and this reduces accuracy enormous.


The required standard for the English war bow was a sheaf of arrows at 240 yards fired at a clout, or square of canvas laid on the floor. The minimum length of a shooting range under an act of Henry VIII was 220 yards, whilst the Finsbury ranges were laid out with the last mark at 400 yards. At 150 yards you'd be very unlucky to be hit by a musket ball aimed at you.

The musket ball does travel in a ballistic curve, a fact not fully understood until at least the mid/late 19th Century.


Given 2 equal sized bodies of 18th to early 19th Century musket vs English professional archers. I'd put my money on the archers
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 6:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Evans wrote:
Given 2 equal sized bodies of 18th to early 19th Century musket vs English professional archers. I'd put my money on the archers

Nobody who's money actually mattered did. Every state virtually bankrupted themselves to change over to the new technology and to keep up with advances. They wouldn't have done that unless there were very clear advantages to using firearms - or more importantly - clear disadvantages to being left behind.
View user's profile Send private message
Ed Schelzel





Joined: 22 Jun 2008

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I apologize for resurrecting this old thread. For those not wanting to read the entirety (TL;DR Big Grin ) it devolved into a debate over whether or not a long bow could puncture plate (and kill). This further extended into what could and could not pierce maille.

I was hoping to read Rod Parson's findings, especially the arrowhead Types he actually used. Anyone know or have a link?
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,504

PostPosted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 8:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
David Evans wrote:
Given 2 equal sized bodies of 18th to early 19th Century musket vs English professional archers. I'd put my money on the archers

Nobody who's money actually mattered did. Every state virtually bankrupted themselves to change over to the new technology and to keep up with advances. They wouldn't have done that unless there were very clear advantages to using firearms - or more importantly - clear disadvantages to being left behind.


Not quite so clear-cut.

(1) A big part of the attractiveness of muskets was that they let you field a larger body of musketeers than you could of archers. Did the English ever manage to field 10,000 archers in a battle? They certainly managed more musketeers than that in the 18th and 19th centuries. Even if, one-for-one, a body of archers will beat a body of musketeers, what matters is whether the body of musketeers you can afford can beat the smaller body of archers you can get.

(2) The Russians appear to have switched to the musket because it was cheaper.

But those who retained the bow in the 16th and 17th century also adopted (or retained, more usually) muskets as well. The Manchu were very bow-centric, but when they controlled enough Chinese territory to start large-scale conscription, 50% of the Chinese conscripts were to be artillerymen or handgunners.

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.


Last edited by Timo Nieminen on Thu 20 Jan, 2011 3:50 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Werner Stiegler





Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 12:19 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Are static, square formations like archers not very vulvernable to the field artillery of that age? WTF?! I mean, the few battles they have won were won by choosing favourable constricted ground and constructing extremely light field fortifications.



Aren't people gonna laugh their ass of when they see them lining up in tight, deep formations for their guns? Never mind that the 19th century used other technologies - like balloon spotters, rockets and masses of light cavalry on scouting/harassing duty. Remember how hard-pressed the Cruaders found themselves whenever they could not pin the light cavalry down. Oh, and let's not forget that they had easy access to pistols, which were apparently absolute murder on knights in close combat.


Last edited by Werner Stiegler on Thu 20 Jan, 2011 5:07 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Gottfried P. Doerler




Location: Tyrol, Austria
Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 229

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 1:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Evans wrote:

The required standard for the English war bow was a sheaf of arrows at 240 yards fired at a clout, or square of canvas laid on the floor. The minimum length of a shooting range under an act of Henry VIII was 220 yards, whilst the Finsbury ranges were laid out with the last mark at 400 yards. At 150 yards you'd be very unlucky to be hit by a musket ball aimed at you.


yes, you had to be very unlucky to be hit by one musketball at 150 yds., thats why they fired in volleys and statistics increased the chance of a hit. but archers also fired in volleys/sheafs, and there also had to be a great proportion of bad luck to get hit buy a single arrow at this distance.

this was still true for late 19th/early 20th cent. bolt action rifles, although at greater distance. some (e.g. mauser 1871) were sighted up to 1,000 yds, the springfield 1903 even to 2,500 yds (!!) and no one can tell me you can hit a single target at this distance with iron sights. the reason is, that shooting at target areas by a squad was commonplace, done e.g. by the u.s. marine corps in belgium 1918.

i think with bow you have to switch from aiming directly at a target to shooting at an target area already at much lower distance than with a musket.
View user's profile Send private message
Glennan Carnie




Location: UK
Joined: 23 Aug 2006

Posts: 289

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 4:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
i think with bow you have to switch from aiming directly at a target to shooting at an target area already at much lower distance than with a musket.


Actually, you probably still aim directly at a single target, even at extreme range - it's just that your CEP gets so big you're effectively area shooting! Happy

As we say, anything within 50m of the target is considered accurate! Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 7:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Werner Stiegler wrote:
Are static, square formations like archers not very vulvernable to the field artillery of that age? WTF?! I mean, the few battles they have won were won by choosing favourable constricted ground and constructing extremely light field fortifications.


Pike squares would be very dense and a single canon ball could wipe out an entire file but a formation of archers might be bit looser and more spread out but artillery would be equally dangerous to a line of musketeers ( Archers being also in a thin line rather than a 20 man deep pike square i.e. the thin red line of the British was probably in part to avoid the deeper earlier formations more vulnerable to canon balls I think ).

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
David Evans




Location: Rotherham, West Riding
Joined: 09 Sep 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 9:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There's a fair bit of work done on musket effectivness which suggests that in testing muskets could archive as much as 75% of balls on a Unit sized target at 100 yards. The little work done on actual rounds expended in battle vs known enemy dead and wounded, with some pinches of salt, suggest that figure drops to as low as 25% in battle at 100 yards.

Given the standards expected of men training with the war bow in England every Sunday what figures could you expect ?

Given that a Archer was issued about 60 to 72 arrows at the start of the action and aimed for no more than 6 shots a minute. How many would drop into the area of a Battalion in Line of Advance at 220 yards ?

The spread of firearms is pretty much a cost vs ease problem. It takes a life time to get a good archer. A weeks training will give you somone who can fire a musket and drill at a reasonable rate.
View user's profile Send private message
Christian G. Cameron




Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: 07 Dec 2009
Likes: 13 pages
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 193

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 10:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

25%! the Prussian staff study (its been years, but I think there's a staff study from 1820something that is the basis for most Napoleonic war gaming) and authors like Brent Nosworthy (Anatomy of Victory et al) show pretty conclusively that the battlefield effectiveness of the musket was about 3% hits per volley or per unit of time measured.

That said, muskets had a vital power in merely belching noise and smoke--there's a fantastic firsthand account in George Hangar's "Too All Sportsmen" (1809, veteran of the American Revolution and shooting fanatic) about watching a unit of French Grenadiers be shot to pieces by Jaegers in the 7 Years War, but because the Grenadiers couldn't hear the shots, they stood their ground until virtually annihilated...

And despite all of that--technology, IMHO, works with the society and culture that produces it in synergy, not despite or against that culture. Military history buffs want the spear or the pike, the bow or the musket, to be "superior" but the causes and effects that render one more successful in a society may not be "battlefield efficiency."

As a sort of thought experiment, consider that most combat, as seen by a common soldier, is in Petite Guerre and not in "Battle.' From 1300-1800--heck, to this very day--the common experience of the soldier is patrolling, foraging, recon, policing, etc. The "Day of Battle" may or may not be decisive, but it is virtually incidental to a soldier's campaign life. (How many days per campaign season does a soldier spend in "battle?"

So when we have these fascinating conversations, we have to ask--how hard is it for soldiers to carry the musket or bow or crossbow? The ammunition? How does it work in the rain? How easy is the weapon to use from dense cover? from a prone position? From a kneeling position? Inside a barn? Through a loophole? in a street? Against a civilian who has locked their door? How much maintenance does the weapon require? Will it work in snow? In mud? In thick dust? is it finicky? is it robust?

Can you carry it loaded? How about on horseback? How about while running?
Can you shoot it and then use it as a hand to hand weapon?
Can you carry it and use a shield?
How much does it weigh?
How long does it take to train a man to use it?
Are the resources to make it and train men in its use native to the country under study?

I could go on...

I play with many weapons and I'm pretty expert with the Brown Bess. I have 35 years experience with it. It is incredibly robust, I can teach a modern person to use it well in about 4 hours, it works in the rain, and at 50 yards, I can hit the bulls eye every time. Since dust, foliage, and movement obscure most battle field targets over 50 yards to the point of simple area fire (I have some actual military experience) it's really just fine. And since real people when receiving fire shoot really badly, my own skill as a marksmen is virtually unimportant anyway... It can toss a ball well over 200 yards if I want it to, with about the same accuracy as an archer--sorry, archers, but let's all go out in all weathers and shoot at 220 yards at single moving targets. Can we agree that the round ball will probably hit more of them?

I shoot bows, too--with much love--mostly my 300 BC Scythian horsebow. If I DO NOT AIM I can loose about 6 arrows a minute--on foot, with my arrows planted in the ground. I am modestly skilled. When I was 16, in my first summer of ownership of a Brown Bess Musket, I trained myself to shoot 6 times a minute form a cartridge box which moves with me--no extra time to plant the arrows in the ground. In a stiff breeze--especially a variable, intermittent breeze--I can miss my target 7 of ten times at 80 yards with a bow (I may just be a poor archer!). In a driving rain, my horsebow becomes virtually un usable.

The brown bess, if taken care of and used by a good soldier with good NCOs to keep him attentive, can fire volley after volley in the rain. Sure--there's a gradual degradation in a company's fire, as unlucky men get rain directly in their pans--but even that can be remedied. After six days of rain (I've actually done this) my whole unit can fire shot after shot, from cover, prone, in dripping wet woods...

The musket is just better than the bow, longbow, or crossbow. (Tee hee...the cat among the pigeons)

Finally, there's cost. I'm anxious to get a Steve Stratton Longbow. They cost a little over twice what a cheap Brown bess repro costs, or almost to the dollar what a custom, hand made brown bess costs from a well known maker like Len Day. But each round ball costs me about $.25, whereas each of my horn-nocked Scythian arrows with wooden shafts and bronze heads costs me about $18. Now these are modern prices, but again, the reasonable man theory suggests that work and production time carry over from period to period...

That was fun. Now I should go do some work...

Christian G. Cameron

Qui plus fait, miex vault

www.hippeis.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Musket vs. Crossbow & Longbow
Page 10 of 15 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 13, 14, 15  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum