The History of the Bow

[salty mud]

Hello.

I want to learn about the bow but not visit websites with pages and pages of information bout Compound Bows, Wood Bows etc etc.

Are bows the basic mechanics of guns? Especially crossbows, as I believe they work by (although I'm not certain) loading the arrow in the crossbow, pulling the string back behind something, then a trigger release the string and sends the arrow flying becuase the tension in the string sends it flying forward.

Feel free to contribute facts etc on the bow.

 

[History_Buff]

Basically it's all an exercise in Tension, though I don't know what kinda level you're looking to find info on.

The Bow utilizes the Plasticity of solids: namely, it makes use of the fact that when you deform certain solids, they attempt to revert to thier previous form. When the bow string is pulled back, it causes the wood or metal to deform, and when the deforming force (your hand) is removed, the wood/metal will try to reassume it's previous shape, causing the bow string to accelerate toward it's regular position, thus accelerating the arrow.

And Bows and Crossbows have very little to do with the operation of guns. While the triggering method of the crossbow appears similar, a crossbow is a closer relative to the catapult, while firearms use the force of expanding gases to accelerate a projectile.

 

[Verbose]

And Bows and Crossbows have very little to do with the operation of guns. While the triggering method of the crossbow appears similar, a crossbow is a closer relative to the catapult, while firearms use the force of expanding gases to accelerate a projectile.

And people in the Middle Ages being very rational actually classified archers and catapults alike under the heading of "artillery".

 

[Evil Tyrant]

I've heard that it is legal to shoot Scotsmen in York with a crossbow.

 

[sydhe]

Basically it's all an exercise in Tension, though I don't know what kinda level you're looking to find info on.

The Bow utilizes the Plasticity of solids: namely, it makes use of the fact that when you deform certain solids, they attempt to revert to thier previous form. When the bow string is pulled back, it causes the wood or metal to deform, and when the deforming force (your hand) is removed, the wood/metal will try to reassume it's previous shape, causing the bow string to accelerate toward it's regular position, thus accelerating the arrow.

And Bows and Crossbows have very little to do with the operation of guns. While the triggering method of the crossbow appears similar, a crossbow is a closer relative to the catapult, while firearms use the force of expanding gases to accelerate a projectile.

Two other kinds of weapons which use elasticity are slinghots and spring-powered "guns."

 

[AxiomUk]

I've heard that it is legal to shoot Scotsmen in York with a crossbow.

There's likely to be a law somewhere which overrules this law now, if it was ever a law and not just a myth.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The bow works on the premise of potential energy. You pull the bow back, increasing the tension, and the potential energy. You release the string, the bow snaps back into place converting that potential energy to kinetic energy, when the arrow strikes the target all that kinetic energy is focused on a very small point, this can cause significant damage to the target (obviously), and in most cases piercing the side it hits, and punching all the way through the target. And the clever creatures we are, we said "hey, if a bow can do this much damage to a deer, imagine what it could do to a human."

It has another plus in that the ammo is generally limitless provided you can retrieve the arrows, and that they are intact.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

And Bows and Crossbows have very little to do with the operation of guns. While the triggering method of the crossbow appears similar, a crossbow is a closer relative to the catapult, while firearms use the force of expanding gases to accelerate a projectile.

Not so much catapults as they are to ballista.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Here's a good question. The earliest firearms were horribly inaccurate and ineffective weapons. They were either hand cannons which often harmed the user, or heavy-ass muskets that necessitated stands to aim with. Yet longbows and crossbows are generally not found after 1500. An expert longbowmen could put 12 arrows in the air a minute, and be relatively accurate up to 270 yards. Up until breech-loaders (1780), or at least flintlocks(developed in 1600, widespread by 1700), reloading times were well below that. Like, what, 3 or 4 shots a minute? And maybe accurate up to 100 yards? Why were military thinkers so quick to replace bow weapons with less effective firearms?

They're loud. And smoky. That's about all I got.

 

[History_Buff]

At first it was just the prestige of being able to own so many firearms. And I'm pretty sure that early firearms weren't all that difficult to operate (the main selling point of the crossbow), as opposed to a longbow, which takes years to become really good at. So you wouldn't have to train a guy, just line em up, and you've got army in a can.

The shock value of the sound and smoke was probably pretty cool back then too.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Here's a good question. The earliest firearms were horribly inaccurate and ineffective weapons. They were either hand cannons which often harmed the user, or heavy-ass muskets that necessitated stands to aim with. Yet longbows and crossbows are generally not found after 1500. An expert longbowmen could put 12 arrows in the air a minute, and be relatively accurate up to 270 yards. Up until breech-loaders (1780), or at least flintlocks(developed in 1600, widespread by 1700), reloading times were well below that. Like, what, 3 or 4 shots a minute? And maybe accurate up to 100 yards? Why were military thinkers so quick to replace bow weapons with less effective firearms?

They're loud. And smoky. That's about all I got.

Training green troops in how to use said weopans.

It can take years to train up an archer to some level of efficiency. It takes weeks to train up a musket-user. Considering the attrition level of armies in those times, you do the maths.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

And fixing a bayonet to a firearm turns it immeidately into a spear, so musket-users are not as melee-incapable, as archers. Though I am not sure when bayonets are invented...

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Here's a good question. The earliest firearms were horribly inaccurate and ineffective weapons. They were either hand cannons which often harmed the user, or heavy-ass muskets that necessitated stands to aim with. Yet longbows and crossbows are generally not found after 1500. An expert longbowmen could put 12 arrows in the air a minute, and be relatively accurate up to 270 yards. Up until breech-loaders (1780), or at least flintlocks(developed in 1600, widespread by 1700), reloading times were well below that. Like, what, 3 or 4 shots a minute? And maybe accurate up to 100 yards? Why were military thinkers so quick to replace bow weapons with less effective firearms?

They're loud. And smoky. That's about all I got.

Perhaps more power to pierce a knights armor (though a crossbow did that quite well) and the explosion when the weapon was fired scared the horses in the early day's of firearms I would imagine. And you generally needed to be skilled with a bow to be a bowman, with a musket (the early ones) you just set it on the stand, point the end of the barrel at the bad guy and pray you're close enough to hit him.

 

[FriendlyFire]

And fixing a bayonet to a firearm turns it immeidately into a spear, so musket-users are not as melee-incapable, as archers. Though I am not sure when bayonets are invented...

The first Bayonets were "PLUG" type which was literialy a shrt sword fitted into the barrel of the rifle making it a spear. Which denied the use of the gunitself so this was quickly changed so the bayonet was fitted under the rifle.

The word bayonet itself is French word. and was orginally developed by the French in 1647. By this time flintlocks were invented.

 

[Verbose]

And fixing a bayonet to a firearm turns it immeidately into a spear, so musket-users are not as melee-incapable, as archers. Though I am not sure when bayonets are invented...

Archers weren't "melee incapable". Mostly they were professional soldiers (Welsh mercenaries, Genovese crossbowmen etc.). But they weren't hired as auxilliary infantry.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Yes, but musketmen are perhaps more melee-able, than archers?

This also brings the point of muskets enable larger armies, thru faster training and mass conscription, rather than small forces of professionals.

 

[Atropos]

Crossbows are slow to fire, albeit not quite as slow as early muskets. Also, the loud sound of musketry was sometimes useful against green troops.

 

[Dell19]

Perhaps also because guns were new? Sometimes inventions are seen as being the future and thus people invest heavily them regardless of the initial cost or that initially performance may not increase.

 

[EdwardTking]

There are a number of reasons why guns replaced bows:


(i) Less Skill - Already Mentioned


(ii) Greater Impact

A heavy musket ball could more or less be relied upon
to kill (head or torso impact) or disable (arm or leg) the
first person it hit, and would often kill or disable again by
passing through and hitting another person in next rank.

An arrow might likely be stopped by (i) wooden palisade,
(ii) shield, (iii) armour or at least deflected. An arrow
would at most only impact one person.


(iii) Greater range

A musketeer could engage at double the range.
This meant that he could shoot archers before
they could engage him. It also meant that he
had twice as long to reload as the archer, thus
partly compensating for a slower discharge rate.


(iv) Multiple WarHeads

With the gun, one could fire a mixture of
projectiles e.g. short range blunderbus.
Alternatively either fire two bullets rammed down
barrel together or part cut a bullet in half,
either way there would be two chances.

Firepower could also be doubled by having
two barrels. A musketeer, if defending could
load up three muskets and therefore have
two free strikes before needing to reload.
A crossbowman could do this too, but not
a long bowman.

(v) Central Control

Gunpowder was initially expensive. So the
lord, officer or sheriff who had control over
the gunpowder supply could better manage.

 

[FaggisTheFagari]

correct me if i'm wrong but;
-man invented bow somewhere around 10.000 B.C.
-i'm not sure but first composite bows were maybe made 5.000-4.000 bc (at least some major improvements in woodworking happened at that time, might be earlier)
-crossbow was invented in China ~0 ad, crossbows w/ steel "arches" (is that correct?) introduced ~1300 ad in medieval europe
-semi-automatic chukonu-crossbow was invented in china ~1.000 ad(i've read that chukonu was pretty ineffective weapon; short range and low power. chukonu bolts had to be smaller and lighter to fit in the magazine. chukos were last used at chinese-japanese war in late 1800's)
-longbow was invented in wales in ~1000ad. in my opinion, it's the most important event in the history of bows. longbow had a maximum range of 300 metres and could easily penetrate all armors(well, maybe not the heaviest ones). Longbow was one of the main reasons why englishmen eventually kicked frenchmens' asses in the hundredyearswar. On the other hand, good bowmen had to start training at childhood. I think that arrows and bows were expensive too, cause they had to be manufactured carefuly by hand(allthough bows were often made by their owners).

Thank you; i never believed i would need this information anywhere