This week we have been learning about
arms and armor. And I wanted to review on differences between the crossbow and
the longbow during the middle ages. As we know, the crossbow was commonly used. According to the course packet, the weapon was composed of a bow fixed horizontally
to one end of a wooden stock called a tiller which contained the trigger that
held the bowstring in place until was ready to be fired (111). The crossbow was
easier to fire compared to the longbow; the archer would aim and then squeezed
the trigger lever to lease the nut (112). If we were under attack from Central, we would protect Burnham by sending the crossbow archers in the
opening state of the battle. This would give us a protected position that
allowed reloading in relative safety (CP 113).
Notice the image above, the crossbows are located on the left. And the longbow are on the right.
Next we would have to send out longbows because
crossbow is much slower to load and fire and a longbow can draw and fire six to
twelve arrows in about a minute (112). Ideally during battle, warriors would
want to use longbows for efficiency. And according to our course packet, bows
were also banned, because of their country’s proud heritage of the long bow and
the view that crossbow have a lack of skill and strength needed for the use of
a longbow (113).
If we were under attack, would you pick
up a crossbow or a long bow? Which one would be more efficient during the
middle ages?
sources: Course Packet.
CANON 29 [1139]
ReplyDeleteSummary. Slingers and archers directing their art against Christians, are anathematized.
Text. We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of slingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians.
If it were up to me, I would let the long bows fire first. Seeing a bunch of arrows "raining from the sky" would not only be an effective strategy, but it also would be pretty nerve wracking.
ReplyDelete