Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:We don't follow the Geneva conventions anymore.

Nor your own constitution.

The Mountanyards, probably misspelled, had these crossbows that looked like a four year old child had made them. Their arrows (bolts) were made of bamboo with empty 5.56 X 45 (M16) points smashed down to a point. They would fiill the empty shell with some kind of greenish herb that we never learned and they were accurate up to 50 meters. We found one baddy that they had shot the night before and he had enlarged to water buffalo size. Nobody missed with the 'Yards.

Regretably some people follow no rules. We have 2 suspected bombers in custody here at the moment, one Iraqi, one Iranian, both medical doctors!

Want me to send some 'Yards to interview them?

The Mountanyards, probably misspelled, had these crossbows that looked like a four year old child had made them.

The whole point of the crossbow was that it was much easier to train someone to use it as opposed to a long bow. The whole problem with Franklin's idea was that there would not have been the industrial base to produce enough bows and arrows to accomplish his task.

And then, there is the whole idea of training a longbowman. European armies went to muskets because it was relatively easy to teach recruits to load and fire them as opposed to the investment of time and effort needed to make someone into a proficient archer. Firing a musket takes no skill. The same cannot be said of archery.

Frankly Gunny, they'll probably need protection in gaol. It's my experience that many who live on the fringes of society have a better understanding of 'justice' than those who represent them in court!

Too true Min. In my youth I made a cross bow, I used one leaf of a car's leaf spring and it worked alright!
It put a length of half inch dia dowel clean through my dad's shed door at 100 ft.
Trouble was, dad was inside at the time.
He burned it!

Minimalist wrote:
The whole point of the crossbow was that it was much easier to train someone to use it as opposed to a long bow. The whole problem with Franklin's idea was that there would not have been the industrial base to produce enough bows and arrows to accomplish his task.

And then, there is the whole idea of training a longbowman. European armies went to muskets because it was relatively easy to teach recruits to load and fire them as opposed to the investment of time and effort needed to make someone into a proficient archer. Firing a musket takes no skill. The same cannot be said of archery.

Longbows and muskets don't have the same application. With a longbow a trained archer can hit a target at 100 meters plus (over 330 feet). A musketeer couldn't hit anything at over 100 feet!

It put a length of half inch dia dowel clean through my dad's shed door at 100 ft.
Trouble was, dad was inside at the time.
He burned it!

I bet he was pissed! Did you tell him you were conducting your experiment in the name of science?

Actually Charley, he didn't seem inclined to listen to reason argument!
Mind you there had been the problem with the fireworks I'd made earlier, that may have influenced him some what.

Of course it explains the reports of child molestation of the time.

Mind you there had been the problem with the fireworks I'd made earlier, that may have influenced him some what.

With a longbow a trained archer can hit a target at 100 meters plus (over 330 feet).

Absolutely. But it took years to attain that degree of proficiency. Militarily, archers used to fire in volleys just like musketeers.

And it took a lot longer to make a single arrow than it did to cast a lead bullet.

And the enemy can fire your arrow back!