chinese crossbows vs european crossbow
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2218
Printed Date: 07-Jun-2024 at 22:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: chinese crossbows vs european crossbow
Posted By: Subotei
Subject: chinese crossbows vs european crossbow
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 00:14
|
who had the better crossbows,exluding the chinese repeating crossbow ------------- Get inside the enemys thoughts capitalise on their fears. |
Replies:
Posted By: Idanthyrus
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 02:48
| I'm not sure which one is better by virtue of their relative technical merits but the Chinese chu ko nu did come almost a millennium before the European crossbow. |
Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 13:33
| That depends on the time period. During the Han dynasty, the Chinese crossbow would both outrange the European crossbow<which wasn't used much anyway> and is also quicker to reload<hand cocked>. By the middle ages, the European had the arbalist, which would outrange the typical chinese crossbow. However, this superior range was evened out since the reload time takes unreasonably long. |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 13:34
|
Which crossbow and when?
-------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2005 at 15:19
What period??? 
|
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 08:54
|
The question is way too general... ------------- "Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft, I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart." --Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild) |
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 12:57
Yes Europe's best did come late, but just to note there were crossbows in China and Europe centuries before Christ, they just were not a weapon of choice. Chu ko nus are not necessarily superior, they can be cocked fast but have low range and penetrating power compared to a good standard crossbow. Probably a very effective weapon in seige defense. So you can indeed leave them out. ------------- |
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 13:23
|
What crossbow existed in Europe that early? Are you referring to the gastrophetes? ------------- "Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft, I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart." --Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild) |
Posted By: Idanthyrus
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 14:32
I had forgotten about those. |
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 15:11
So which crossbow were you referring to then? ------------- "Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft, I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart." --Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild) |
Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 19:09
|
Cho ku nus was the best or the worst depending on the situation. Defensively, on a wall or a tower the cho ku nu was an exceptional weapon delivering a large number of projectile on the enemy in a short period of time. The height advantage gave the cho ku nu more penetrating power as well as range. This can be devastating for unit that is not well armoured. On the other hand cho ku nu wouldn't be very effective against well armoured cavalry or infantry moving with shield formation on an open battlefield. ------------- |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 19:49
I remember that the armies of Han empire had very powerful crossbows, not chu ko nu; there were in this forum a discussion about the roman armie vs the han armie, and the folower of Han said that the chinese crossbow could pierce greeks shields... But, the european crossbows of XIV and XV century were very strong too. Umm we need help  , exact information.
|
Posted By: Idanthyrus
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2005 at 20:38
Gastrophetes. Also Roman scorpions. Both did come reletively early to Europe but due to their very low rate of fire and their inherent inaccuracy they were really only useful as siege weapons. I would say that untill the late middle-ages Chinese crossbows were more effective than Western ones in general. |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2005 at 00:01
|
that must be warhead... just wondering why the crossbow, given all it's virtues, didn't phase out a conventional bow altogether? was it because it's a paing in the neck to reload?
------------- 
|
(not saying wether he's right or wrong though)Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2005 at 21:01
|
probably ------------- Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man. -Francis Cardinal Spellman |
Posted By: Landsknecht_Doppelsoldner
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2005 at 21:29
What made them inherently inaccurate? ------------- "Who despises me and my praiseworthy craft, I'll hit on the head that it resounds in his heart." --Augustin Staidt, of the Federfechter (German fencing guild) |
Posted By: General_Zhaoyun
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2005 at 02:39
|
There is a thread in China History Forum discussing about it: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2275 ------------- Founder of http://www.chinahistoryforum.com - China History Forum |
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2005 at 11:06
|
Idanthyrus, Gastrophetes was not scorpions, the scorpion was a type of ballista (or onager, it is confused); gastrophetes was a greek weapon for sieges but other family of weapons. Ballistas was a collective weapon not only used for sieges, romans used it like field artillery (all legions had 70 ballistas) bye |