Talk:History of crossbows

Military history: Technology / Weaponry B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Weird mathematical claim without source

"The payment for a crossbow mercenary was higher than for a longbow mercenary, but the longbowman did not have to pay a team of assistants and his equipment was cheaper. Thus the crossbow team was twelve percent less efficient than the longbowman since three of the latter could be part of the army in place of one crossbow team"

Where does the 12% come from and it kind of contradicts itself saying "Yeah, it was more expensive, more people, more everything and less efficient" so why was it done then? Obviously contemporary people disagree on the efficiency claim because they did pay more, did not mind all the hassle and more mouths in the army. The 12 % is not even straight forward like "3 archers for 1 crossbowmen", but some weird mental arithmetics.

The entire calculation sounds shady and is completely unsourced and should be at least heavily qualified --2001:A61:2A98:7201:177:8A14:E1F4:735F (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hiya. So I happened to be studying Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, and took some notes on the history of crossbows. They're at User:Gwern/Crossbow. Feel free to use those quotes! --Gwern (contribs) 19:06 5 May 2009 (GMT)

That's very good that you provide refernces from such a hard to access book. However, while I'm totally for implementing it can you also help with some other sholars opnions on the subject in order to avaoid an unbalanced article. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Crossbow?

The first sentence of the Europe section seems somewhat suspect, as the crossbow is a weapon whose power is derived from tension, whereas the ballista's power comes from torsion, two entirely different concepts. If this is the case, how can the ballista be a larger version of a crossbow? Anyone have any thoughts on this? If no one has objections, I'll be editing this soon..... Meatwaggon (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever edit that section got the source from a hobby book on how to build catapults and ancient artillery, and not from a history book. Ballistas are not crossbows. Bluntly putting it, a crossbow is a bow turned side ways and fitted with a trigger mechanism. A ballista got two sticks twisted very tightly to provide the torsion power -- it is not even a bow in form!

--MrZhuKeeper (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss what you want to delete or change before ripping out whole sections, please. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add the dubious/discuss thing, but I didn't know how at first. The first sentence under section Europe about ballistas being giant crossbows is so wrong, I had to delete it. Crossbows gets its energy the same way as a bow, ballistas do not. To say a ballista is a giant crossbow, is like saying a catapult is a trebuchet(catapults and trebuchet can both fire large rocks, but trebuchets use counterweight(s) to fire while catapults use torsion).

Another problem is with the source of the first sentence under Europe "The earliest date for the crossbow is from the 5th century BC,[1] from the Greek world; this was a giant crossbow known as a ballista" If you find the book, "The Art of the Catapult," in Amazon, you'll see that it is more like a hobby book rather than a history book.

Ballistas are similar to crossbows, but are definitely not giant version of crossbows. That first sentence has to be revised.--MrZhuKeeper (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there is no mention of the Oxybeles. Perhaps what the author was thinking of a ballista such as can be seen on this page. It seems to be a large crossbow.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Critique History of Crossbows Crossbows have been in use for thousands of years and have a rich history indeed. Sadly this article does not go into a very detailed account of the history of the cross bow. It mainly focuses on the historical warfare uses of the weapon and not a good detailed history of the weapon itself. It is true that the bow was used in many different battlefields over a long historical period. I would like to learn about some of the first main uses of the cross bow in the past. Was the cross bow meant for only warfare at its introduction or was it originally meant for other uses? This is a good question to answer in writing about the history of the weapon. In terms of the grammar and word use the article does not use any wording that will confuse a reader. The article goes straight to the point with clear and well written sentences. Some key terms are hard to understand but with research someone can easy determine their usage. The article does do a good job at explaining the benefits the cross bow men had in the armies of Richard Lionheart with having two servants, two crossbows, and pavise or shield to protect the bowman. That was a good and interesting fact about the job of the cross bowmen in the battlefield and knowing that they were not left unprotected. The person behind the article did a good job with supplying good information about the subject of the cross bow. I compared the wiki article to information provided by the Encyclopedia Britannica Academic Edition and the some information is the same but the encyclopedia did not go into this level of detail. The pictures in the articles are very accurate on the different types of cross bows and the use of the pavise on the battlefield. One picture shows how the shield helped protect the bow man from danger. The sources for the article come from a lot of Encyclopedias and books on warfare but no academic journals or peer reviewed articles. This is fine with me thanks to the use of Encyclopedias but sources from academic world would be better and make the information even more trustworthy. To make the article a little better and noteworthy I would include information about the reasons why countries developed the cross bow like the encyclopedia provided. Some information about the different types of arrows the bow was able to fire is good information on how potentially deadly the weapon might in the past is a good addition. I enjoyed the article and the author did a good job with its creation it has no contributors that left information that felt wrong or false. One contributor even corrected the article after mentioning it in the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist406-13110480303kennetheley (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Levantine origin of Hellenistic crossbow

I am surprised there is no mention of the theory, prevalent in ancient times, of the Levantine, more specifically Syrian, Phoenician or Cretan, origin of the crossbow. There is some evidence to back this up, such as the machines that could hurl stones and arrows at besiegers mounted on the walls of Jerusalem in the 8th century BC under king Uzzia, at the time the Sidonians, known for their manufacturing skills, were working on the Temple. Given their reliance on fortifications and a navy, a Punic origin for crossbows and ballistas has some logic. Cf. Plinius Naturalis Historiae 7.201; L. Alexander “The origin of Greek and Roman artillery” in The Classical Journal vol. 41, no. 5 (1946) 208-21287.212.52.128 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian origin of Chinese crossbow

And I am surprised there is no mention of the yantra from the Vedic literature of India, probably a giant crossbow, that could lent support to a Southeast Asian origin for the Chinese crossbow, by assuming it spread from there both to India and to China. Crossbows have long been popular in the jungles of Southeast Asia, Africa and South America. Cf. S.D. Singh Ancient Indian Warfare with Special Reference tot the Vedic Period (Leiden 1965) 112-687.212.52.128 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that would have to predate Chinese literature mentioning crossbows from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (i.e. Warring States, Qin, and Han era sources). Moreover, Warring States Period Chinese crossbow bolts and full bronze crossbow trigger mechanisms from as far back as the 5th or 6th century BC have been excavated by archaeologists. Are there any such archaeological finds in Southeast Asia that predate these, or are even contemporaneous? Crossbow trigger mechanisms represent a pretty high technological development that requires a civilization at about the same level as the Chinese at the time (for instance, the Greeks, who also invented the crossbow in the form of the gastraphetes). What kingdom verified by the written record even existed in Southeast Asia during the 6th century BC? The Kingdom of Funan and Champa didn't even exist until roughly the 1st century AD.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much contemporary is indian relief from 2nd centuries BC of the indian cross bow, i think cross bow has much more ancient origin than we think, this technology is clearly widespread from europe to china even in 2nd centuries BC 202.188.53.210 (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of crossbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of crossbows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305184249/http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/Peruffaa04/images/b2aBriFFEE2_EP_jpg.jpg to http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/Peruffaa04/images/b2aBriFFEE2_EP_jpg.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Crossbow countermarch.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Han dynasty scaling nut.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Warring states repeating crossbow.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

39cm crossbow trigger NS dynasties.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12th century vs 14th century

How did the Islamic World not mention Crossbows before the 14th century but it was in use since before then? The picture used even contradicts this by having a Mamluk using one in the 12th century. Is this claim verifiable? Is there an expansion on this claim? If not, then there might have to be deletion of the phrase. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:D48B (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of Al-Tabari and Al-Jahiz and Al-Maqdisi all knew and wrote about the Sassanian-era crossbow, the Panjakan (Banjakan in arabic). So I will just go ahead and delete the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:D48B (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the picture is of glass in black and white. It is not of a text. No additional sources or content were added for the above claims and cannot be confirmed. Qiushufang (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]