Talk:Crossbow/Archive 1

This page links to "fletch", but the page for Fletch is about a novel and movie. (It should probably either be unlinkified, or a second Fletch page should be created.)

I've changed the link so it goes to "fletching," which is the right page. Apol0gies 17:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crossbow Mechanisms

Should information concerning various crossbow mechanisms be posted in this article? (For example, we could differentiate between the rotating nut mechanism used by European crossbows and that of the Chinese crossbows.)

I think that would be a good addition. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that information concerning Chinese crossbow mechanisms is easy to come by, I couldn't find a diagram of a typical European crossbow mechanism on the internet. Could any one contribute a source that would make my search easier?

I've found several sites with cross-section diagrams of the bronze Chinese crossbow mechanism: link title computer smiths-The invention of Crossbow

link title Ancient Chinese bronze crossbow mechanisms

Keeping bows pulled

while archers could not keep their powerful bows pulled for long periods of time.

This was added to continue the idea that crossbows are better than longbows. Yet, the argument provides no counterbalance, as to why longbows were better than crossbows. It is more credible left unsaid, the fact is Longbowmen could fire off a shot very fast. Longbows and crossbows were used for 100s of years neither was clearly the better weapon, unlike firearms which supplanted them both for example. The article is currently somewhat misleading in regards to the role of crossbows and longbows.

the value of the crossbow came in its simplicity: it could be used effectively after a week of training

It was a complicated mechanical device that took training to master both in its use, and upkeep. It broke down often in particular in bad weather. Crossbowmen were a special breed, they didnt just appear after 1 week of training.

Stbalbach 23:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crossbow: draw weight

Recent changes have changed the expression 'draw weight' to 'draw force'. Personally, prefer the former as I belive it is a traditional way of expressing the power of a bow - although perhaps this should be explained in the article. Of course, neither weight nor force is a true indication of the power of a bow as the energy stored would actually be a function of both the required force and distance.

Yeah. From the drawings, it looks like the distance over which the string exerted the force was a lot less in the case of a crossbow than in the case of a longbow. That would tend to reduce the energy. However, it's a little more complicated than that, because the force isn't constant. If you draw the bow back to a distance x, the force is F=kx. The work done is the integral of Fdx, or (1/2)kx^2. It looks like the crossbows have roughly half the x of a longbow, but twice the F at that x, so their k is apparently about four times greater. A four times greater k at half the x would give the same work.--Bcrowell 07:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a complicated mechanical device that took training to master both in its use, and upkeep. It broke down often in particular in bad weather. Crossbowmen were a special breed, they didnt just appear after 1 week of training.

Combat ready and master is not the same. And yes, after a week of training your good enough to handle the crossbow in battle, troop dicipline is another matter.

Longbows had better range and faster rates of fire, but took longer to train longbowmen; their arrows take longer to fletch, but the bows themselves are easier to make. Easier crossbows couldn't break through armor, which is why the longbow wasn't immediately replaced.

Both weapons had advantages, but neither was clearly better than the other. You can compare the AR-15 (M-16) to the AK-47 assault rifle in the same way. One is cheap, rugged, and designed for closer ranged combat, and the other is better ranged, more steady/accurate, and easier to carry. Every army has its own analysis of combat, and every side picks which weapon it believes is more suited.

Primary Sources (& Latin)

The text currently reads:

Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbow against Christians in 1097, and the Second Lateran Council did the same for arbalests in 1139.

Can anyone cite the primary documents for these two banns?

What I'm chiefly interested in is how "crossbow" and "arbalest" are specified and distinguished in declarations which must have been in Latin: so far as I know, the usual word used for both of them is arcubalista. --Iustinus 06:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

-Crossbow was the generic name for the weapon. "arbaleste" was the old French word for it (in modern French it is "arbalete"). In English however, an arbalest specifically refers to a powerful "sniper's crossbow", to put it simply. They had metal strings, and almost invariably needed winches to load.

That's more or less what I thought, but the problem is that the text seems to indicate that the distinction existed in some form in 1139, since the Second Lateran Council banned arbalests specifically–distinctly from crossbows. I still haven't found the text in Latin, but I did at some point find an English version that implied that the presence of arbalests might be more a question of "interpretation" than "translation" --Iustinus 16:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: ""We forbid under penalty of anathema that that deadly and God-detested art of stingers and archers be in the future exercised against Christians and Catholics" (I think "stingers" is in error for "slingers" though). I need to find the Latin text to see exactly what it says, but it looks like the idea that this refers specifically to arbalests could be a question of interpretation. --Iustinus 18:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

NCstars FX-II

I have never heard of the crossbow NCstars FX-II... Can you please provide me a link?

I am really interested in hearing what a "shoulder-cock" is.

Yes, I concur too. What is a NCstars FX-II and how does a shoulder-cock operate?--KeyserSoze 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've never seen such a crossbow, how does it work? Is there a picture perhaps? I can't find any NCstars FX-IIs on Google.

I have googled "shoulder-cock crossbow" and "NCstars FX-II" and "NCstars"- and every reference is to this wikipedia article or information clearly derived directly from it (same wording). This suggests that (in descending order of charitableness....)a: The shoulder-cock device is more commonly known by another name and "shoulder-cock" is a very rare usage. Or b: The shoulder-cock is exceptionally rare and the original author is one of very few people who've heard of it. Or C: It, and the NCstars FX-II are a complete fiction, put on wikipedia as a prank to spread disinformation.

Since the author has not replied for some time to previous questions, if we do not recieve a response fairly soon i think i'll just remove that entire section. ~~Ian, !8.01.06

---

The crossbow is FX-II, NCStars refers to the scope. Here is a link to one that was up for sale a while back:

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5867465

I'm somewhat confused by this section of the article -- granted, I know very little about crossbows, but I sometimes shoot with someone that uses one in the SCA. Her crossbow is a traditional medivel crossbow, and she can get off seven shots in 30 seconds (one of those having been loaded beforehand), so I don't see what's particularly noteworthy about this feature, and why it's included. Nor do I have any idea what it is, either.

Crossbow: Effective Range

Strangely, this article does not address the effective range of a Medieval crossbow. I've did a little research, and all the estimates vary (45 yds. - 200 yds.), however, care should be taken to keep it consistent with the other projectile Wikipedia articles (Mongol Composite Bow, English Longbow, etc.)

crossbow vs. longbow

The longbow was not a new weapon when it was so effectively introduced by the British. It was the skill of the british longbowman and their generals that made the longbow armoured-french-knight-killer. They were the masters of their art with deadly accuracy and excelent discipline. Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages, it´s how you use that counts. But the longbow cant penatrate the armour of the french knights until the knight is 25 metres away.(Uber555 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

To my knowladge it could penetrate up to 100 meters, with bodkin arrows that british longbowman used most of the time. And if not the breastplate, there are lots of other places that are weaker( and highly experienced archers did just that). I read that bodkin arrow could penetrate the leg armour, leg, saddle and finally get stuck in the horse... But if you have 3000 thousand longbowman firing their 12 bodkin arrows a minute at a mass of horseman there ARE results ( Agincourt, Crécy...).

There should be further qualification (and citations) as to what is meant by "armor" when referring to the penetrating power of medieval missiles (how's that for alliteration?); plate armor is not maille. I'm skeptical regarding any missile's ability to penetrate the plate armor of the late middle ages, armor that swords and spears didn't penetrate, armor that mandated paradigm shifts in melee tactics (war hammers and maces became popular).

- unitl 16th century the most common version of armour was mail( various versions and different thickness) and by missile peneteration we mean against these types of armour. From that time on plate armours became more frequent and of better quaility. The French knights during hundred years war wore plate mail ( but probably not all of them), but Britih knew how to shot them down ( killing horses, aiming for weaker places in armour, sheer number of projectiles launched against them). But helmets and breastplates were VERY difficult to penetrate, except at very close ranges or with specialised weapons. But not to be confused with impeneterable curiasses of the 17 century´s cavalary. They were often resistant to firearms!

Based on my info at Agincourt the bow didnt peice until close range but some french knights some got stuck also the knights had steel armour btw and i was refering to plate armour(Uber555 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC))

In general the longbow is thought to be able to defeat even plate armour at medium ranges. Difficult question is what we mean by armour. The strongest parts of armour is breastplate and helmet- these would be very difficult to penetrate. However leg, arm and joint armour would be much weaker. It is not easy to fight with arrows sticking out of you legs and hands... Steel armour? British were using steel tipped arrows..

Flight

Early on there is reference to arrows relying on lift and quarrels not but no explanation. In what I've read, lift isn't mentioned anywhere in arrow flight and particularly isn't relevant with a fletched arrow. Anyone like to add their thought?--Rjstott 10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Invention

Joseph Needham writes "For the bow, the crossbow (probably invented in the Chinese culture-area and introduced to Europe twice) and pre-gunpowder artillery, I have had the benefit of the collaboration of..." [1] Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to Tom's talk page under "Crossbows" wherein I have made most of my case. Summary: Archaeological evidence, numerous historical records, and historians all point to the clear, indisputable fact that the crossbow was invented in China and later passed West along the Silk Road. Saying anything else, only serves to take away from the pure truth of things. It is like saying "the automobile was probably invented in America" (but France may have invented it instead). As you can see introducing the word "probably" in relation to well-known facts borders on lying and is misleading. 69.194.137.183 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:3o

Is there any evidence that the crossbow wasn't invented in China? Both of these sources seem to agree that China is the most likely place it was invented, with just a difference in the degree of certainty. We should come up with some wording that balances the two opinions. Fagstein 08:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Degrees of Certainty: The difference in degree of certainty between the two sources has to do with the difference in situations of the two sources. The first source Zhao Ye is a source from or close to the time period in which the crossbow was actually invented (+ or - 200 years). The second source, by Needham, is contemporary and is nowhere near close to the time when the crossbow was invented.

Naturally, Needham's source would have less certainty (and authority) since it is separated from the time of the invention of the crossbow by at least 4000 years.

The uncertainty with Needham has little to do with the question of whether or not the crossbow was invented in China (that is a fact that is proved by numerous sources that do exist other than Needham), but instead has to do with Needham's own uncertainty and lack of knowledge, which is not Needham's fault at all since he wrote his work 4000 years after the crossbow was invented in China. 69.194.137.183 20:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Needham, a distinguished scholar, had access to the same historical data. He concluded that the Chinese probably invented the crossbow. It is the job of historians to examine primary documents and write history. It is the job of Wikipedia to report what historians say, not to use primary sources to write history ourselves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I repeat for your memory: Needham isn't the God of History and nobody should treat him that way. Needham is one intelligent historian out of many many brilliant historians throughout history. Reporting what historianS have to say would mean reporting that the crossbow was invented in China. 69.194.137.183 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you cited Needham to begin with. I had not heard of him until you mentioned him. If you now prefer to cite other historians, go ahead and add references to them also. We'll quote what they have to say about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now look here. The crossbow was already common throughout China 2400 years ago. The earliest a crossbow appeared in the Middle East was around 1000 years ago. The crossbow was first used in Europe only 800 years ago. Do the math. There is no way the crossbow was not invented in China. In ancient times, China was the most advanced country in the world and the only country capable of inventing something like the crossbow. The age of the oldest intact crossbow, found in China, is 4000 years. 4000 years ago the only civilization able to invent a crossbow would be China. Purely by deduction, this conclusion can be attained, notwithstanding other more tangible evidence such as artifacts and literary documentation. 69.194.137.183 21:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be easy for you to find an historian who says so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a matter of finding a documented source or historian, it is a matter of finding a source that you understand. For example, Zhao Ye, the historical chronicle of Wu and Yue, provides clear evidence, but do you understand it? I don't think so. There are great books beyond count, in Chinese naturally, that have chronicled this invention of the crossbow and more, that you are ignorant of. A small sample:

-> 春秋左氏傳

-> 史記, 司馬遷

-> 資治通鑑, 司馬光

69.194.137.183 22:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt an Arab scholar can provide books written in Arabic that say an Arab invented the crossbow, and gunpowder as well. Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability say, "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are coming very close to being racist. You have in one little paragraph depicted Arabs as being liars and made English sound superior to other languages. I would stop going in this direction if I were you.

If the reason for using English is "so that readers can easily verify" then that is complete nonsense because English is a language little understand outside the secluded Western world. In fact, the language that the most readers can verify would be Chinese as Chinese is the most widely spoken and used language in the world.

Finally, the fact that you are ignorant and unable to comprehend the sources does not take away from their validity in the slightest. The sources will be cited in the article and you would do well to reflect on your racist tendencies. 69.194.137.183 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires as a matter of official policy that cited sources be verifiable. The page I linked to, describing this policy, says in part, "English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." I expect that is because this is the English Wikipedia. If you think the policy is nonsensical, you are welcome to try and change it, but until then the policy remains in force. Verifiable sources must be provided, and English sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources. So far the only English source we have is the one you provided. It says the Chinese probably invented the crossbow.

You can provide a source in Chinese that says the Chisese invented the crossbow. I said an Arab scholar could probably cite a book in Arabic that says the Arabs invented the crossbow. I don't see how that can be construed as suggesting Arabs are liars, or that I am a racist. Our disagreement has been very civil so far, and I have appreciated that. Wikipedia has a policy of no personnal attacks. Please do not suggest that I am racist, or I will seek enforcement of that policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in: pretty well all the sources I have read agree that the crossbow was invented in China. Many, however, seem to think that it was also invented independently elsewhere, most notably in the Greek area around 400 BC. It's certainly possible that it was actually introduced from China; if that is the consensus of historians now (I wouldn't know) then great. Otherwise, shouldn't we mention both possibilities?

In any case, the crossbow has certainly been known in Europe for more than 800 years; it was used during the First Crusade, and it was the Europeans who brought it there, not vice versa, so it must have been reintroduced before 1100 AD, assuming it was ever completely forgotten after antiquity. Megalophias 05:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are both right and wrong Megalophias. The weapon you refer to invented and used with limited success in ancient times in Greece is known as the gastraphetes. The weapon was similar to a crossbow in that it was a bow fired horizontally. That's where the similarity ends. The Greek bow was drawn by using a pair or more of hands grasping the bowstring and pulling it. In Greece, it was an improvement over the conventional bow fired vertically because it allowed for greater firing distance and impact power, but it had limited success because of the recoil that would occur from releasing the bow (which would knock the user(s) backwards). Being knocked over by yourself, during a battle, is not very good for your health as I am sure you can imagine. Anyways, the gastraphetes was NOT a crossbow by any measure. To say the gastraphetes was a crossbow is like saying a toy wagon played with by children is an automobile.

The crossbow was exceptionally advanced for its time (4000 years ago in China). It had interlocking mechanisms that drew on Physics' concepts such as a trigger lock, double hand crank, tumbler, and sear. It was a fully functioning "ancient gun". In fact, the enemies of the Chinese in ancient times called it the "bow gun". There was no recoil problem because of the rear sight, which allowed one to hold a crossbow and fire it comfortably at waist-level.

To close, not one gastraphetes has ever been found by archaeologists and its existence is primarily conjecture based on obscure writings. The gastraphetes, assuming its true existence, was not a crossbow by a longshot - at best it was a primitive ballista. On the other hand, many crossbows have been found in China dated at a far earlier time than the gastraphetes (~ 200 years by one estimate). One of the reasons, the Chinese discarded bulky plate armor (think medieval knights) early on in their history was because of their invention of the crossbow. A crossbow could easily pierce several sheets of metal at a distance of over 300 meters - wearing plate armor would be like saying "Kill me please". The crossbow with its many advantages over the conventional bow (increased accuracy, greater firepower, faster fire rate -> the repeating crossbow, Zhu Ge Nu) completely revolutionized warfare. But I digress.

I have dredged up some modern English sources. Though their credibility and knowledge are incomparable to the ancient Chinese sources (writing something 4000 years after something is invented tends to do that) they will have to do.

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm http://www.atarn.org/chinese/yn_xbow/yn_xbow.htm http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/crossbow.htm

69.194.137.183 20:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

history of the crossbow/ballista

In local dialects like Bavarian, crossbows are referred to as "Balliste", similar to the Roman "ballista". In French crossbows are called "arbalète", either a descendant of "arbaliste"; "ballista". It is similar in Italian and Spanish. German and English are the two European languages known to me, that don`t have the ballista as root for the word crossbow or "Armbrust (armchest)".

The difference between a ballista and a crossbow is the acceleration system. The ballista stores energy via torsionelastic sinews and other fibres. The crossbow traditionally uses a prod (nowadays there are some versions with elastic fibres and a tackle). Small ballistas have been in use to operate from citywalls during the defence of Syracus against the Romans (214-212 BC) and in land- and seawarfare, but always as artillery or big sniper gun with enough force to absolutely kill the target of one to several armed enemys or dart incendiary compositions. The artillery was operated by relatively untrained soldiers and because of its size and expense (the sinews or fibres were the very expensive part) was not widely in use. So there are not many artefacts of the Greek use of this weapon to remain. Later the Roman military used this weapon more excessive all around the Mediteranian and Europe for a long period of time, so naturally they left a lot more artefacts to be found. This weapon started as a siege weapon to kill defenders and destroy walls. Later, during the Syracusian siege Archimedes adapted it as smaller sniper weapon, but still stationary. Siege weapons can be carried along with the army or more often they are constructed right during the siege operation itself. Looking at a ballista and estimating that its predecessor was either a siege weapon, the simplest way to construct it, was a big bow with a pulling system to put more energy inside, than one man could handle at once. But this construction does not require parts of metall (most remains today are only the metall parts) that can be exclusively used for this purpose and it is heavy to carry around, but simple to construct. The problem with a thick bow, or prod is that the thicker it is the more energy it can store, but either the slower it releases its tensionenergy, so the projectile has to become heavier and is propelled very ballistic, hitting on the spot. This limits range and aiming ability. Faster and lighter projectils are better for direct aiming and hitting, penetrating and flying again, causing more damage. An energystoring system with a prod, a barrel and a trigger was either tried as handheld infantryweapon for the phalanx. The energy was delivered by pulling the chord to the body with one hand and resting the barrel on the body (The German term "Armbrust (armchest)" for this weapon seems to refer to this old method of charging it. The warfare crossbows in the 9th to the 16th century were never operated this way.). But this system had too little energy to be usefull in warfare against mostly heavily armoured infantrymen (in Greece, Italy and Sicily). So it stayed in use as a hunting weaping, besides the bow and the (very cheap) sling, compared to which it was more expensive, had less range, less penetrating power and lower rate of fire. But you could fire from every position.

Some suspicion about the Chinese "invention" of the crossbow arises, when you read that it is traditionally used by the American Inuit and Central African tribes for hunting. At least one thing is sure, the handheld crossbow in warfare is first described by Chinese authors and they early developed it into a sophisticated weapon (ancient remains can be found). Having the first descriptions and the oldest artefacts to be found, does not necessarily mean to be the inventor. But at least the first one to develop and use it extensively. Their development of this weapon was less about big siege weapons. In ancient China they were constructed with several prods, but their range of 150 meters could never match a Roman/Greek ballista with 500 meters range. On the other hand the small Roman hunting crossbows (similar to the Central African types) had very low technical data compared to their handheld Chinese counterparts.

repeating crossbow

The repeating crossbow was mostly used by police forces and against lightly armoured forces/horses. The use of poison on its bolts is something many cultures would have regarded as warcrime for the use of poisened weapons.

crossbow invented in China

Nobody really knows where the crossbow was invented. Old and sophisticated remains can be found in China. But the light hunting crossbow, often using poisened bolts, can be found from Central Africa to the Inuits of Northern America and the Indonesian Islands, being similar in construction. (The computer was invented 1938 by Konrad Zuse(had a boring job) in Germany. Looking on the world nowadays, where most sophisticated computers are developed some decades later, you get a totally different picture. Another example would be the longbow. Invented by the Vikings, adopted by the Welsh and the Englishmen got famous for it on the battlefields in France. See, mainuser is not necessarily inventor.) Sophisticated heavy and fast crossbows have been developed in China (=improvement) and can be found there at an early age. Although introduction of these sophisticated Chinese crossbows to Europe is highly questionable. Powerfull European crossbows have evolved from a totally different system to charge the bow.

In Europe they were first using a belthook on a broad warbelt (you attach it to the chord in order to pull) for the strong crossbows. The foot was put into a sling fastened to the end of the crossbow with the prod downwards. Standing kneebend or even sitting the leg/s were straightend then. Chinese archers pulled the chord directly with a sling for the foot, attached to a hook, which pulled the chord. So they stood charging and had the prod upwards, using muscle force and bodyweight. A totally different position, compared to the European system.

It looks more like convergent development, although it could have been somehow inspired, but the nations in between China and Europa tended to rather prefer the bow to the crossbow. It is possible, that Arabs used some Chinese crossbows against European knights, because archery proofed to have too little penetrating power to hurt the combined gambeson/chainmail (chainmail alone can be penetrated easily, a gambeson offers a bit resistance and together they can even take most of a crossbow bolt`s energy).

Wandalstouring

Did the Saxons use crossbows in the fifth century A.D.?

To settle an edit dispute on the King Arthur (film) page, did the Saxon peoples use crossbows at around this time? I'm pretty sure that they didn't, and this is one more historical inaccuracy of the film (which purports to be a historical treatment). 203.131.137.90 06:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Saxons and crossbow/ historically correct

The Saxons were influenced by the Roman military. They should historically correct appear as a lightarmoured imitation of late Roman legionnaires. Small hunting crossbows (little force, not penetrating armour, inefficient weapon) and big stationary crossbows (ballista/ efficient weapon) handled by 2-3 men would be historically OK, but not too many of them. They relied more upon a lot of javelins, some bows and slings. Afterwards they poke the enemy with spears and lances. Then cutting down the remains of the enemy not with swords, but with axes or their sax (big knife to cut wood or men with a sharp peak). Swords would just be very few (expensive) Roman spathas (long cutting weapon with two edges and a round peak).

Removed references to crossbow's raw power compared to standard bows due to lack of reliable evidence

There is evidence about the pulling force of crossbows ranging from 50 kg to 400 kg. While longbows and composite bows reach fromm 30 kg to 90 kg. Thats well known and reenactment, as well as historical tests have proven this. What are you talking about?

Invented in ancient China

"The use of the bow and arrow for hunting and for war dates back to the Paleolithic period in Africa, Asia, and Europe. It was widely used in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, the Americas, and Europe until the introduction of gunpowder. However, over two thousand years ago in China, the crossbow was invented as an innovation to the basic bow and arrow that extended the use of mechanical hand weapons throughout the world." (http://www.computersmiths.com/chineseinvention/crossbow.htm)

"A crossbow is a type of weapon (weapon: Any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting) that fires projectiles called crossbow bolts or quarrel (quarrel: An angry dispute) s. It was invented in China, played a significant role in the history of European medieval warfare and is still used in modern times for various purposes." (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/crossbow)

"The crossbow was invented in China but developed into a significant weapon in medieval Europe." (http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0920660.html)

To the liar or ignoramus above: Sorry, but EVERYONE knows the crossbow was invented in China. Do not EVER use the lie that "hehe nobody knows exactly where the crossbow was invented" to push forward your extreme prejudice and bias ever again. I am planning to sue Wikipedia for the intentional or unintentional dissemination of lies and deceiving the public at large if petitioning Mr. Jimmy Wales comes to no effect. Enough is enough. Be warned. 69.194.137.183 15:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. — FireFox • T [15:44, 09 April 2006]

More to the point, WP:NLT. This user (and sockpuppet User:=Axiom=) has been blocked indefinitely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

no proof of Chinese invention of the crossbow

"The history of the crossbow is varied. In China (China: A communist nation that covers a vast territory in eastern Asia; the most populous country in the world) in the 200s B.C., the crossbow (nu, 弩) was well developed and quite widely used. One of the most distinctive Chinese inventions on crossbows was the repeating crossbow (repeating crossbow: more facts about this subject) (Chu-ko-nu)," (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/crossbow)

-> your own source doubts you.

It is mentioned in historical Chinese literature that the crossbow was invented in China. But modern archeologists (even Chinese) argue, that this could be a misinterpretation and that the invention was just referring to a new trigger system (that is an essential part of the crossbow). Most internet sources are not based upon thorough research and myth carry on. To really spot an inventon so old and widespread you can see at what time it happend to appear where on the globe. That is very difficult, because early crossbows consisted out of materials easily decompositing. You need very lucky circumstances to find remains.

By the way you know the story of spinach containing lots of iron? It really doesn`t, but for a long time people thought so (some even today) because of unaware research.

What can be stated, is that 9000 BCE the last wave of settlement till European apperance is reaching America, the Inuit. They do know the crossbow as a hunting weapon (It is possible that they were influenced via Scandinavian settlers, but there are other sources pointing out, that they already knew it at an early state). Inuit crossbows: http://collections.ic.gc.ca/stones/graphics/toy/G03656.jpg http://collections.ic.gc.ca/stones/graphics/toy/G03661.jpg

The African crossbow seems to derive from European crossbows and has influenced native American crossbows (http://www.diaspora.uiuc.edu/A-AAnewsletter/newsletter16.html). You can state this by the different mechanism and when they were where in use. So it was not invented in Africa and Africans introduced it to the American natives. The descendants of earlier settlers to America are not known to have used a likewise weapon till having contact with African settlers. Archeological evidence supports the time of development of the crossbow in China at the eneolithic/chalcolithic period around 2000 BCE (about 4000 years ago to this day).

But there is still the route to South-East Asia, which has to be checked. As long as it is not possible to make an absolute statement about it, you can say possibly invented in China or definetly highly improved at an early age. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm "Chinese literary records (Zhao Ye: 'The Romance of Wu and Yue') date and place of the invention of the crossbow in China to the Warring States period state of Chu (Selby: 'Chinese Archery'. Hong Kong University Press, 2000. p. 158), with the implication that the crossbow was unknown in China before about 500BCE." www.wikipedia.org "Archeological evidence supports the time of development of the crossbow in China at the eneolithic/chalcolithic period around 2000 BCE (about 4000 years ago to this day)." The area of China was mostly not inhabited or ruled by Chinese and so it was not China. But referring to the place where it is found today, this place is China. So early crossbows can be found in the area of modern China, but they were definetly not invented in the territory of historic China.

The hill tribes use a very simple crossbow, similar to ancient European constructions, before the rise of belthook drawn crossbows. (http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/61/Thailand_Adventure.html). The description of these bows also similar to the old findings in China. They are a candidate for early crossbows, because some of these tribes also inhabited the area of China long ago. So you can most likely place the origin somewhere between China and South-East Asia.

The best solution would be to refer to an AREA of origin, but absolutely not simply saying China.

warnings

it is a sign of ignorance to say "I am planning to sue Wikipedia" and slam some sites from the net that have no scientific authority. I could slam some sites that proof any nonsense. Use arguements and logic.

Can we compromise?

For crying out loud people, why is this so important? Why can't we just say "probably invented in (what is now) China, may have been independently invented elsewhere." The evidence isn't exactly overwhelming either way, and sources differ. Megalophias 04:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

China not spreading inventions like the crossbow

China has made great inventions, but if they were military or economically important, they were the least ones to spread it voluntarily (but they are absolutely not the only ones with this attitude). In this aspect their longlasting good organization proofed very helpfull. So it often took quite a time before even reaching the surrounding neighbours. Look at the article about the history of silk or paper in wikipedia. A similar exampel would be the production of steel. Export of steelproducts was prohibited under the penalty of death, because it was essential for military supremacy. The compass invented in China, was seen as always pointing southwards. We regard our compass as pointing northwards and this is internationally established, because Chinese did not share knowledge about their early invention of the compass. The basic of blackpowder was a medicine and distributed as such, before someone found out other purposes. So I don`t want to state, that they kept everything hidden to foreigners.

The crossbow was the weapon for Chinese ranged warfare, making it possible to aim easily with high energy missiles or shoot faster than anybody else. There are examples of 20% of an army carrying these weapon systems, when fighting nomadian tribes with lots of archers. So first, the crossbow played a significant role in Chinese warfare. I don`t think they would willingly give this essential weapon away, so knowledge would soon spread throughout Eurasia? Especially automatic reloading crossbows (the automatic reloading manuballista worked differently) and the Chinese footdrawing system have not been known outside of China. Arabians, having lots of trade relations with India and China in 800 BCE and later refer to the crossbow as "franconian bow" during the crusades, never a word about China, from whom they had for example gathered knowledge about making paper. It is much more likely that the Southern neighbours of ancient China spread this knowledge, who were organized in small tribal villages and not part of China.

What can be stated is, that the oldest remains of crossbows can be found on the territory of modern China. The descendants of the ancient inhabitants (most parts of modern China are 2000 BCE not part of China, the finding site for example / former inhabitants are among the hill tribes or have little territories in China) are still known for their crossbow archery. They are often studied when looking at the history of the crossbow in China. But they are not Chinese, especially not Han-Chinese and therefore they are not regarded as inheritants of Chinese history in China (no military service allowed, no leading political functions). But this regard of who is Chinese and part of Chinese history is no recentness, but longstanding policy since the times of emperors. Of course you can argue, that the different dialects are based upon the languages of different people and so there was also a process of assimilation besides conquest and colonisation. It is possible, that the inventors of the crossbow were among these, but still it was independent barbarian land at the time the oldest known crossbow was made there. So there is no right for the claim of Chinese inventing the crossbow. But you can absolutely state, the oldest fragments were found in modern China.

In the research about the "invention of the crossbow" in Chinese sources, stated at 500 BCE, it is argued, that it was actually about a new trigger and that the weapon had been introduced to historic China several centuries earlier. Chinese were the first to do lots of things for the crossbow, like metall triggers, footdrawing, multiple prods, shooting stones, bigger sizes and automatic reloading.

In the pictures showing Chinese snipers of our times, the depicted crossbows do not use prod tension, but elastic fibres (a bit louder, but less ballistic for lighter ammo). Such a system is similar to a Romano-Greek ballista using torsionelasticity of sinews or other fibres. As long as we count this modern system as a crossbow, and it is sold under this name, we have to state that the ballista is also a crossbow and make a link to the article. As I stated above, in Latin based languages "ballista" is the root for their word for crossbow. I read above, that people said a ballista and a crossbow had nothing to do with each other, because of the different size. Well, Chinese multiple-prod crossbows were bigger than any ballista and had to be operated by more men.

As I have stated above, the later European modifications of the handheld crossbow with a prod, are most likely an independent development, but they are based on the same weapon as the earlier Chinese inventions. Reading an article about hill tribe crossbows it reached my eye, that a tribesman stated his crossbow was too heavy for the game he was hunting. Indeed these crossbows are very light, but highly acurate (longer stock for the arrow to glide along), compared to the heavy warcrossbows, which had as little contact with the arrow as possible. This way of hunting very small game in a woodland makes a crossbow more usefull for daily life.

Greetings Wandalstouring

rude practise

Sorry, but wiki was edited very rudely, just to state the crossbow was invented in China, you don`t have to change the fact that crossbow bolts are heavier than arrows and delete things about the employment in China and elsewhere. I have looked up some wikis. In French wiki, it is stated, that "l`arbalète (arme)" was invented in China, but without source. In Dutch and German wiki it is not. There it is just stated that the crossbow was well developed in China and at what time it is proofable.

We can discuss this isssue, but the editing went definetly too far, because suddenly there was lots of technical nonsense here.

Besides making a big stress on Chinese technological supremacy and overwhelming historical achievements, it is against wiki`s policy of neutrality to simply state, that any general was famous or any military invention was great. You can be absolutely sure, that someone does not share this opinion. It would be much better to write and link a biography if someone (like general Zhuge Lian) is important or to state what was the advantage of an invention (like the Chu-ko-nu/Zhuge Nu), so the reader can judge by himself whether any person deserves fame or any invention is a great thing.

At least, compare the history of the crossbow to the history of the bow or the sling. China has no claim about inventing any of these two and there is less fuzz about any national claim where it was invented. It is correctly stated with the geographical place and sometimes with the scientific name of the culture inhabiting this place at that time. What can be stated for sure is the invention of the boat for example in South-East Asia, totally changing settlement or agriculture in many places changing the living conditions and dental health.

invention - logical mistakes in this opinion

Tom Harrison says in his explanation about the "invention of the crossbow in China"

"The difference in degree of certainty between the two sources has to do with the difference in situations of the two sources. The first source Zhao Ye is a source from or close to the time period in which the crossbow was actually invented (+ or - 200 years). The second source, by Needham, is contemporary and is nowhere near close to the time when the crossbow was invented."

And then he tells that archeological evidence supports the existence of crossbows in East Asia at 2000 BCE. So you have to state, that the source of Zhao Ye is not reliable at all and is absolutely not close to the time the first crossbow appeared. Simply a mistake of logic. This is the only historic source stating that the crossbow was "invented" in China (written after it was founded). Everything else is archeological evidence found in Eastern Asia. There you have to regard the circumstances that lead to archeological remains. Afterwards you have to state exactly to which culture the artefact belongs. Especially compare it to the situation of similar examples (listed below, copied out of wiki).

China or Chinese did not exist 2000 BCE. But there was the Langshan culture, and the Chinese culture is its descendant. Although no archeological evidence is known, that they did invent the first crossbow. Simply impossible to prove. But you can say the oldest remains are found in East Asia on the continent.

Compare the statement "The crossbow was invented in China!" to these examples of fine research in wikipedia.

The sling: The sling is an ancient weapon, the origin of which is lost in antiquity. It is certain that slings were known to Neolithic peoples around the Mediterranean, but it seems likely that the sling is very much older. It is quite possible that the sling was invented during the Upper Paleolithic at a time when new technologies, such as the atlatl and the bow and arrow, were emerging. With the exception of Australia, the sling became common all over the world, although it is not clear whether this occurred because of cultural diffusion or independent invention.

The bow: (First possible depiction is from 15000 BCE in the Pyrenaeen./not mentioned in wiki) The bow seems to have been invented in the late Palaeolithic or early Mesolithic. The oldest indication for its use in Europe comes from the Stellmoor in the Ahrensburg valley north of Hamburg, Germany and date from the late Palaeolithic Hamburgian culture (9000-8000 BC). The arrows were made of pine-wood and consisted of a main-shaft and a 15-20 cm (6-8 inches) long fore-shaft with a flint point. The oldest bows known so far come from the Holmegård swamp in Denmark. In the 1940s, two bows were found there. They are made of elm-wood and have flat arms and a D-shaped midsection. The middle part is biconvex. The complete bow is 1.50 m (5 ft) long. Bows of Holmegaard-type were in use until the Bronze Age; the convexity of the midsection decreases through time.

The atlatl: The atlatl (pronounced ät-lät-ŭl), or "spear thrower", is a tool that uses leverage to achieve greater velocity in spear-throwing, and includes a bearing surface which allows the user to temporarily store elastic energy during the throw. It consists of a shaft with a hook, in which the butt of the spear rests. It is held near the end farthest from the cup, and the spear is thrown by the action of the upper arm and wrist. A well-made atlatl can readily achieve ranges of greater than 100 meters. Wooden darts were known at least since the Middle Palaeolithic (Schöningen, Torralba, Clacton-on-Sea and Kalambo Falls). They could be used up to distances of about 15 m with enough power to hurt or kill an animal. The atlatl is believed to have been in use since the Upper Palaeolithic (late Solutrean, ca. 18,000-16,000 BC). Most stratified European finds come from the Magdalenian (late upper Palaeolithic). In this period, elaborate pieces, often in the form of animals, are common. With a spearthrower, effective distances of up to 70 m could be reached.

I could support the inclusion of something like, "According to Needham, the crossbow was probably invented in China," followed by other views by other scholars. Strictly speaking, Needham says "Chinese cultural area" rather than "China," as the user above is correct to observe. I think that level of specificity might confuse the casual reader, but it is more accurate, and if people prefer it I won't object. I suspect that it's basically pointless to talk with certainity about who invented something like the crossbow. From my reading, there seems to be substantial agreement among scholars that versions of the crossbow were independently "invented" (and "discovered" might almost be a better word) at different times and places. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, for your opinion. But what is Chinese cultural area 2000 BCE? I looked up, China is no geographical term and Chinese culture (first emperor, founding of the country) started about 1750 years later. Sorry but in my opinion Needham is still a bit careless. You could say Chinese cultural area if it was after 500 BCE, but this is almost as long as Christianity exists and longer than Islamic time. In cultural terms, lots of things change in so much time. Well he does solely write about China and Chinese history. There are many theories about the invention of the crossbow and the way of introduction. But please remember, this is archeological research of wooden fragments -> you have to be extremely lucky to ever find anything. Therefore it is common use to simply say where the oldest remains are found and to be very, very carefull about the word invention. My suggestion is to state where the oldest remains are found and name perhaps the exact name of the culture inhabiting this place (you could even say, they are ancestors to another culture). Then say how important the crossbow was for Chinese, how developed it was in early times and when there is evidence for its use in other parts of the world, like Greece, West Africa or the North Pole (whale hunting).

What you suggest sounds reasonable enough, as long as it expresses the view of recognized scholars, and is supported by verifiable citation to their work. We must be careful not to do our own original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Turtle shells with markings reminiscent of ancient Chinese writing from the Shang Dynasty (商朝) have been carbon dated to around 1500 BC."(wiki) This is about the time Shang established the first uniting rule of some areas around the yellow river. Bronze age started 2000 BC there. This leads me to the questions whether one could clarify if these remains are not really bronze parts, perhaps with some other fragments (then there must have been older versions). Well I did research about different versions of the origin of crossbows. In Communist Europe for example it was taught, that Alexander brought it from India to the Mediterannean. But other sources state that he used Philipp`s ballista troops for cover fire. Then there is the opinion it was developed in Greece on its own. Will try some other languages to find more versions. In Islamic sources it is mentioned a pedestal crossbow (qaws al ziyar) was first known in the twelfth century AD) and it is usually drawn, using a windlass. Multiple shot crossbow (charkh kaman) came in use at the same time. It is described to be used in fortresses. For open field battles spears were prefered. Both systems are elaborate. Arabia (origin of Islam) was always strongly influenced by Indian weapon`s technology, because there was no significant own production. They called the crossbow "Franconian bow". The Inuit went to Alaska in 3000 BC and they did know different crossbows for whale hunting. It is not supported that these were introduced to them via Scandinavian settlers in Greenland and Indian had neither untill the arrival of Africans. So I simply suggest to state the known facts and be carefull about any opinion.

Steven Selaby raises some suspection about the early existence of crossbows in China. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm

Slanted prose

The way the Use section is put together seems heavily slanted on convincing the reader the crossbow is in every way supeior to the longbow. Also this article does not state how the longbow dominated over the crossbow during the hundred years war. 70.127.93.127 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the crossbow is better for aiming and penetrating, but more expensive, very heavy and has much lower firerate. Direct confrontations between Genuese crossbowmen and English archers were lost by the crossbowmen during the hundred years war. On the other hand English crossbowmen teams behind pallisades were able to defeat Turkish mounted archers with composite bows during the crusades. The written documents out of the Italian mercenary wars state that the highly valued Welsh and English archers were very useless except for stealing. There battles took place between heavy infantry units and throughout the world crossbows were used as support weapon against such. Succesfull were the longbows, where there was less protection, like leatherwearing Scottish pikemen, Vikings and others. When French military adopted tactics, not to use knights, but heavy infantry, lightarmoured English longbowmen were able to fight them on favourable ground. In deep mud, with warhammers and maces, they were able to defeat them due to their rapid movement out of enemy range and massive attacks, as reported from the battles of the hundred years war. So the English longbowmen were a very cheap and highly effective unit, one of the best in the world, but with the combined power of their whole equipment. Just look up the hundred years war battles in wiki and the crusades of Richard Lionhard, who was a great advocate of the crossbow).

longbow is useless against platearmour, heavy crossbows not.

Second Paragraph

Statements about ancient inventions have to be regarded with great care, especially based upon the wide gaps in time and places between findings of archeological evidence.

Is this sentence necessary at all in a Crossbow article?

The claim that it is a Chinese invention is scientifically not appropiate, because one must have to refer to the historic cultural or political organisation. Oldest evidence of crossbows have been found in East Asia, dating from 2000 BCE. This means at this time the crossbow was known there, but the place and date of appearance is likely to be earlier and not necessarily in the same geographical area. Comparing it to the history of the bow, earliest depiction has been found in Europe, in the Pyrenaeen and oldest remains in Denmark. But no claim about the invention of the bow is made because of lacking scientific certainty.

Nice to see a contrast with bows, but it has absolutly nothing to do with this topic.

In Chinese history a written claim is made in 200 BCE (Zhao Ye: The Romance of Wu and Yue) about the invention of the crossbow in 500 BCE. But is argued, that this is misunderstanding based upon editing of history by later generations. It is more likely that it referred to a new trigger mechanism, besides the invention of doublebarreled crossbows. Unfortunately this led to the doubious claim of Chinese invention of the crossbow. To be politically correct and in regard of archeological evidence, you would have to state that the Longshan culture invented it, what is hard to prove.

Longshan was never mentioned previously, leaving readers with no idea what you are talking about. The entire paragraph sounds like something that is against ancient inventions, not just crossbows. It is completely unnecessary in this article. Olorin28 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not against ancient inventions, but against doubtfull statements about them. Especially when a claim is based on no evidence. For some inventions there is evidence, from others you know less about the appearance, like the crossbow (rotting away easily). For the crossbow it is known, that Chinese military (Ming and Han) relied for experts on merceneries of the hill tribes, these are not Chinese national, likewise later they relied for special cavalry on Mongolians. A nation that invented a weapon does usually not tend to use merceneries for its employment. But you are right, that this parts definetly needs an editing.

The hill tribes are considered Chinese nationals today in the People's Republic of China. Olorin28 00:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The hill tribes do not have all civil rights of Han Chinese in modern China and they were not Chinese back then and some of the hill tribes do not even live in China. Do you call the Seminole bow an US American invention?

No I don't, because Seminoles invented the its bow when the United States had not exist. Nevertheless, the "hill tribes" are still considered Chinese. Some of them certainly became Chinese back when Crossbow was invented. Olorin28 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the hill tribes not living in China any more? Not all hill tribes are assimilated and there is lots of tension between some of these groups and the Chinese population. Calling them Chinese is a point of view.

The Seminoles started their history at the same time as the United States. They originate from Indian mercenarys and inhabitants of Florida. Wandalstouring 23:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Saracen crossbow

The statement about a Saracen composite crossbow is not supported by any listed source. Does anybody have a source for this? It is known to me, that they called the crossbow "Frankonian bow" and were a bit surprised, untill it was adopted for castle defence. Islamic Technology(ISBN 92 3 1027336) Composite weapons were really expensive. The only sources about composite crossbows, known to me, refer to the fact that in Europe composite crossbows were preferred and single piece bows, unlike in Middle East. Source is not in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs)

My source was a book called The Encyclopedia of Arms and Armor. I'm not sure how reliable that book is, and I'd like to find something more authoritative. KarlBunker 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edit where you say that Steven Selby and others question the Chinese origin of the crossbow, can you tell me where you read that? He discusses the history here, but he only seems to mention China. Perhaps you're talking about "China" as a political entity rather than a geographical location? For the purposes of this article, "China" can be considered a geographical location. That's how English-speaking readers will interpret the word as it's used here. KarlBunker 17:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Needham says the crossbow was invented in the Chinese cultural area. This is not quite China and using him for this statement does not seem OK to me: A cultural area is a region (area) with one relatively homogeneous human activity or complex of activities (culture). These areas are geographical rather than historical. (wiki) I think Selby and Needham say almost the same with different words. Selby says in his article from 2001: "Comparing

1. the construction and use of crossbows by China's modern national minorities, 2. bone, shell and stone items found in archaeological excavations that correspond to the trigger mechanisms of modern national minority crossbows, and 3.the possibility of interpreting some early Chinese characters as denoting the crossbow,

these authors are prepared tentatively to push the time of development of the crossbow in China to the eneolithic/chalcolithic period around 2000BCE."

"Be that as it may, field archaeology has not yet uncovered bronze crossbow mechanisms dating earlier than the start of the Warring States period in around 600BCE (A grave burial at Qufu, the ancient capital of Lu. See Zhu Fenghan: ‘Ancient Chinese Bronzes’ p. 274). Since the ability to create high-precision bronze castings is clearly evident from as far back as the Shang period in around 1300BCE, this late development of the use of bronze for crossbow mechanisms is surprising. So also is the absence of an unambiguously-read Chinese character denoting the crossbow. (I discount here references to the crossbow in 'Tai Jia' section of the Shang Shu as a Han Dynasty fabrication.)"

This is expressing extremely careful some doubts. Then there are other sources about recruition of crossbow archers (best snipers) among tribesmen and that the poisons used on Chinese crossbows are all based upon recipes from the hill tribes, living in the South. (I have to look up where I found these.)

The statement the crossbow was invented in China has its source in "Chinese literary records (Zhao Ye: 'The Romance of Wu and Yue'). Most contemporary writers - for example Yang Hong (Yang Hong: ‘Collected Essays on Ancient Chinese Weapons’ (Zhongguo Gu Bingqi Luncong). Cultural Relics Press, Beijing, 1985) and Zhu Fenghan (Zhu Fenghan: ‘Ancient Chinese Bronzes’ (Gudai Zhongguo Qingtongqi). Nankai University Press, Tianjin, 1995) - doubt the historical account." Therfore I am just pushing forward for the use of geographical terms (scientific standard) instead of political/historical. I am doubting whether the word invented fits to a geographical term, I would prefer appeared first or another neutral statement, just to absolutely avoid being mixed up with the uncorrect claim in Wu and Yue. Unfortunately it has been done again and again, that history records were improved by later generations for nationalists purposes (in China and elsewhere), therefore I want a clear line. Needhams formulation is OK and a bit of Selbys concerns makes it better, so there is a balanced expression. Perhaps it should be stated that it is likely other people made there own crossbows later.

"Islamic Technology" says: "The use of the crossbow was not widespread in Islam before middle of the sixth century AH (twelfth century AD), and even after this time it was regarded as more suitable for sieges and to be shot from ships than for field warfare - it took too long to draw and was too cumbersome for use on horseback. in the later Middle Ages, though, it was preferred to any kind of other bow in Muslim Spain. It was called qaws al-rijl(lit. footbow) in "(Spanish-)" Arabic and zanburak in Arabic, Persian and Turkish. One type had a stirrup at the end of the stock; the foot was placed in this stirrup at the end of the stock; the foot was placed in this stirrup (rikab) and the string was drawn back by a hook on the end of a rope. Another type was drawn by using a windlass." You could point out that this crossbow was used for castles and ships. In the field there were Nubian longbow archers, composite bows and armourbreaking javelins. Muslim had real big problem with the heavy armoured knights in the battlefield, that is recorded. It would have been less with such a formidable weapon employed.

I think you did the longbow edit here, you forgot to mention, that armour changed and the longbow was enabled against platearmour, while the crossbows was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandalstouring (talk • contribs)

I've removed the reference to Saracen crossbows. As you say, it doesn't seem to be accurate; the book I was using was probably wrong.

I agree that "first appeared" is much better than "invented", and that's the wording in the article now.

The phrase "Chinese cultural area" is going to be meaningless to most readers, whereas using "China" to refer to the geographical area where the crossbow first appeared is clear and has been used by most scholars in the field. This is similar to referring to "prehistoric China" or "pre-dynastic Egypt." There was no prehistoric nation of China, and no nation of Egypt before the dynasties, but those terms are used because they refer to the geographical area. Since we aren't directly quoting Needham, nor using him as the sole reference for the statement, it's okay to paraphrase what he said, as long as the meaning isn't changed.

I've read the Selby article over and over, and I can't see where he expresses any doubt about China being the area where the crossbow first appeared. He expresses a lot of doubt about the Wu and Yue account of the "invention", but not about the general area that shows the earliest evidence of crossbows.

Please note that you can sign your talk page entries by typing four tildes : "~~~~" That makes it easier to read the talk page

KarlBunker 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring 13:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)OK, will accomodate

Thinking about the Saracen. This is perhaps the wrong group and time. Will try Muslim Spain and Maghreb. After my book they did have a huge interest in the crossbow. My picture for the Muslim (Saracen) crossbow shows a wooden prod and it was a heavy windlass version (if there was any point in using composite material, then for this weapon). Wandalstouring 13:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I think it would be good of a picture of a modern crossbow. This article only has illustration and picture of ancient crossbow.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/e/e2/Armbrust-Schiessen.jpg/180px-Armbrust-Schiessen.jpgWandalstouring 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It is so funny seeing so many discrimination over the invention of crossbow

The chinese did have crossbow Before Christ, and that should the first record in the known human history. That's enough, nearly all of the human inventions which are to be agreed as invention follow the same law: 1, the first record gains; 2, the first exhumated relic gain. Ksyrie 14:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But this is the point: the first exhumated relic gain is not definetly Chinese.

The first record gains are often proofed wrong (and doubted by modern historicans). I don*t know why, but there are ancient writers that preferred to credit their own socienty for inventions made by others (Greek records about the trireme).

No doubt it was known in China before Christ and heavily relied on knowledge about arrowpoison from their Southern neighbours. These neighbours were preferably recruited as specialists for operating this weapon. Of course you can argue what is Chinese and what was Chinese or simply compare the style in this article to other historic inventions.

Common knowledge about history can often be nonsense, like Carthage being an absolute seapower, penteres being rowed by five lines of oars, etc.

Wandalstouring 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This article said that Qin Shihuangdi's tomb contained crossbows, which would make it the earliest relic exhumed. Olorin28 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

nope, other research based on artefacts date it further back (read all sources). the tomb has already been mostly stripped of arms, when it was opened. I do not know exactly if there was a crossbow or just some remains. but I read there were some automatic shooting traps, most likely crossbow based.

Wandalstouring 13:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating proof

Hi, I'm currently working on cleanup at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. In the paragraph below the crossbow diagrams, there's a sentence that reads "Bolts must be sealed with a proof to ensure their consistent weight", however there doesn't seem to be anything on the disambig page there that relates to this. Since I have no idea, could someone who knows what this means either explain it better in this article or (even better) write a new article for it? Thanks! BryanG 02:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed (there is no WP article for "proof mark"). KarlBunker 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)