Archaeologica.org

Seen many King Arthur movies, but the very best was one picked up at Wal-Mart for $2.00 DVD. Appears Italian made with director Fuqua. Authentic down to the 6th century type swords, rather than the later type normally. However the appearence of crossbows is disturbing. Thought these were 13-14th century weapons? Movie name is----what else----King Arthur

Hey Gunny, I thought you were right at least for Europeans until I googled it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#H ... _crossbows

I had heard they used them in China before the common era but this was an eye opener.

Crossbows were used in European warfare from roughly 800 to 1500 A.D. They almost completely superseded hand bows in many European armies in the twelfth century for a number of reasons

King Arthurs time was just after the Romans left---500-600 when the Saxons were invading. Actually, they were brought to England initally, by an eastern England king, to help defeat a neighboring king. Could have crossbows in that time frame, but none found? Super movie----

King Arthurs time was just after the Romans left

no it wasn't

christ sometimes you colonials crack me up
i suppose you think we eat cucumber sandwiches, drink nothing but tea and watch cricket on sundays as well

Yes, it was, Arthur was a grandson of Constantine, lived circa 550 B.C.

550 AD-----AD Pass the cucumbers

Found another site that lists earlier uses:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2866061

Interestingly, when the Romans left Britain, so did the crossbow.

Sounds strange to me but they must have evidence to make a statement like that.

Wups, you're right gunny, 550 A.D.

Well, since the topic is crossbows, I'll put in all I know about them.
I have a lot of Montagnard students (from Vietnam) in my English classes, and I have studied their history.
Their traditional hunting and fighting weapon was the crossbow, and that is pretty much all they had until the 1950's, when the communist Vietnamaese confiscated them, continuing their pattern of oppression of the native minorities..
So now those old crossbows are collectors' items.

You can put in a bid on Ebay for this piece of one!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ROMAN-BRONZE-CROSS- ... dZViewItem


Romans used the scorpion and ballista in the late republican period but archers were never a Roman specialty. When they needed them they recruited them from allied or at least, subject, nations.

This seems to be a late imperial era development.

The Roman ballista was in common usage during their rein. It was the artillery of the time. An archy of a hill fort had a defender recovered with this eight foot projectile in his rib cage. Do not think hand held units were used. They were too slow to reload. When armour became too thick for the longbow, then in the 14th-15th the crossbow brought the end of the armoured knights.

English longbowmen did an effective job stopping the French at Poitiers in 1356. And, of course, gunpowder came into general use a bit later.

The crossbow had the same technological disadvantages as the musket vis-a-vis the longbow. Slower to load and with shorter useful range. Accuracy was problematical with both. Like the musket, the big advantage was that it did not take years to train a man to be proficient with the weapon.

Did the Montagnards speak of an ancient patriarch named Cham (Cambodia, Khmer, Champas)?

Another blow to the Eurocentric superiority complex, cross-bows from ancient Sundaland.

cross-bows from ancient Sundaland

you sound like you've been reading Schoch
at his worst

Benj Franklin in the revolution evaluated the british mode of battle. He suggested, because the slow reload of the muskets at this time and the battlles occuring at 50 yards apart, that companies of longbow men which could shoot 20 or more arrows while the British were reloading would win the battles. The evaluaters, ex-british officers, agreed that it would win the battle, but, it would not be proper warfare.