Jump to content

Talk:History of crossbows: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Southeast Asian origin of Chinese crossbow
No edit summary
Line 50: Line 50:
== Southeast Asian origin of Chinese crossbow ==
== 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 would lent support to a Southeast Asian origin for the crossbow.
And I am surprised there is no mention of the yantra from the Vedic literature of India, probably a giant crossbow, that would lent support to a Southeast Asian origin for the crossbow.[[Special:Contributions/87.212.52.128|87.212.52.128]] ([[User talk:87.212.52.128|talk]]) 10:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:23, 21 February 2015

WikiProject iconMilitary history: Technology / Weaponry B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Military science, technology, and theory task force
Taskforce icon
Weaponry task force

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 (talkcontribs) 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 or Cypriote, origin of the crossbow. There is some evidence to back this up, such as the machines to hurl stones and arrows 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.87.212.52.128 (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 would lent support to a Southeast Asian origin for the crossbow.87.212.52.128 (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]