Talk:Crossbow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crossbow article.
Article policies
Crossbow was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: December 24, 2006


Archive
Archives
  1. /archive 1: Jun 2004 - May 2006
  2. /archive 2: Jun 2006 - Dec 2006


Contents

[edit] Ballista/Catapult is not the same as a crossbow

The Ballista is a form of catapult that shoots stone weights or balls. It does not shoot bolts. The "Roman ballista" or scorpion, is the variant that shoots bolts. Also, a catapult is NOT the same as a crossbow. Catapults/Ballistas use torsion in the animal sinews/ropes for energy, whereas a crossbow uses the tension in the arch of the frame for energy. Intranetusa (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Good Article candidacy on hold

I'm not going to fil this article outright, but it has some problems that would currently keep me from passing it as a Good Article, keeping in mind WP:WIAGA:

  • I see two {{fact}} tags in the article, which are unacceptable for any GA or FA.
  • All of the citations are before punctuation marks; references should always come after period and commas.
  • The lead is quite short. It merely contains a one-sentence definition of a crossbow and a one-sentence history.
  • There are a lot of paragraphs that are incredibly short. Some entire subheadings only consist of one sentence.
  • Per WP:MOS, the only words that should be capitalized in headings (and subheadings) are the first word of each heading and proper nouns.

Please fix these problems. I will check on the article in a week, or sooner if notified via my talk page. Have a nice day, and happy editing. -- Kicking222 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. The article had a major reconstruction (and is not yet finished) and there are constantly inserted claims without facts. The one nominating this for GA has no great edit history in this article. Wandalstouring 12:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed from WP:GAC per request. Best of luck on the article. -- Kicking222 19:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Important crossbows and crossbowmen in mythology"

Really, this is just another way of saying "Crossbows in ancient popular culture", meaning we don't really want this section. -- 我♥中國 23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

funny sig Mibo. I made this section from the part about crossbows. Naturally we can discuss if this is noteable and under what form it should be presented (Different article for example). For example swords have throughout the world a close connection to mythology and so here the the sniper with his crossbow. Wandalstouring 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Glad you like it. IMO it's better to integrate the "popular culture" aspects into existing prose as popular culture sections are not really the best way to add content (as shown by the general disdain shown to said sections on most articles). For example, we can write about how the crossbow has influenced different cultures, such as how the Chinese adopted the crossbow and Chinese warfare (at least Chinese-on-Chinese warfare) became dominated by foot crossbowmen shooting at each other for millenia leading to the decline of the aristocratic warrior class and the rise of a centralised bureaucracy of gentry (something to add, btw), and then go to talk about how it influenced this Finnish folklore and the story of this Swiss guy. Besides, a three-line section looks really bad, which is a consistent problem on this article. -- 我♥中國 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This Swiss guy(his story was turned into a famous play by Friedrich Schiller which is quite often quoted as proverbs among German speaking people) is a semi-legend(and part of the Swiss military tradition, it is not quite clear whether it did or didn't happen) and an example for the poor guy shooting the aristocrat and leading to a peasant rebellion that had similar effects on the aristocracy as you mentioned for China. Possibly we should focuse more on the effects on aristocracy and bears. Wandalstouring 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


You can add William Tell, however different sources/myths has him either using a long bow or a crossbow. Intranetusa (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Gastraphetes catapult or a crossbow

I wonder the definition of crossbow,when I read of Gastraphetes.--Ksyrie 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restructured this artcile,if Gastraphetes is a catapult,it cannt be a crossbow,if Gastraphetes is a crossbow,it cann't be a cataplut.--Ksyrie 18:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The definition of catapult isn't clear. giant siege crossbows are catapults for example. But to say the least the editor at the gastraphetes article seems to have no clue what he writes about and mixes them up with modified oxybeles. That leads to the next clueless editor. Wandalstouring 19:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I found I am so narrow-minded,crossbow and catepult can be interknited.--Ksyrie 20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Catapults/Ballistas use torsion in the animal sinews/ropes for energy, whereas a crossbow uses the tension in the arch of the frame for energy. They are quite different. Intranetusa (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Invention of the crossbow

Whoever wants to put a claim about any invention of the crossbow needs a verifiable source stating date and place. For example Needham is no source for the invention of crossbows in China because he explixitly says they appeared among the hunter-gatherer tribes of South-Eastern Asia. In case someone wants to claim the invention of the crossbow for example in China, please make it clear what you are talking about, the political entity or the geographical region. Wandalstouring 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Needham (emphasis mine): "Throughout the southeastern Asia the crossbow is still used by primitive and tribal peoples both for hunting and war, from the Assamese mountains through Burma, Siam and to the confines of Indo-China. The peoples of the northeastern Asia possess it also, both as weapon and toy, but use it mainly in the form of unattended traps; this is true of the Yakut, Tungus, and Chukchi, even of the Ainu in the east. There seems to be no way of answering the question whether it first arose among the barbaric forefathers of these Asian peoples before the rise of the Chinese culture in their midst, and then underwent its technical development only therein, or whether it spread outwards from China to all the environing peoples. The former seems the more probable hypothesis, given the further linguistic evidence in its support." Beit Or 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The article as it stands carries references from the Spring and Autumn period, which considerably predates any mentions in western (e.g. Greek) literature. In my biased opinion, the Chinese claim to invention of the crossbow per se is more credible in this context because the traditional story of its invention involves Qing of Chu (楚琴氏) crafting a hand-operated bow, not a siege weapon; the former is closer to the modern crossbow than the latter. In any case, by 343 BC Sun Bin was able to deploy ten thousand crossbowmen at a time, according to history (Record of the Warring States). --Sumple (Talk) 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Our personal opinion is OR. We have to be very careful with any assessments. This is the reason why the section is labeled first evidence, so we can present the known facts without making too many claims that are very hard to verify because only a random sample of previously existing items and sources survived to our days. Another problem is the reliability of sources. If ancient scripts described events predating their time it is very usual that they described the events with the implementation of their contemporary equipment or misinterpretations of ancient reports were written down, etc. leading to "modernized" equipment. What we can be absolutely sure of is that at the time the author was writing he had an idea of the devices he described in his mind, so we assume they were existent.
A point that received no attention in the secondary texts quoted here is a critical look at the Chinese and Greek sources. In Chinese literature it was tradition to respectfully improve ancient writings. This can lead to predating. In the Greek writings on the other hand it isn't always clear whether the author just copied from an older source without giving it any credits. Another point is that the Greek copied siege technology from the Phoenicians and it still isn't clear to what extend, etc. For example the dating of the trireme shows a huge discrepance between the written claims and the archeological evidence, assumedly because in retrospective all warships were called triremes as this became the common expression for warship.
Take for example the Battle of Hastings, we have the tapestry of Bayeux showing us the whole battlescene and armor, but no single crossbow. Archeological evidence shows that crossbow bolts were used, making it the verifiable date of the crossbow's reappearance on European battlefields. In between the end of the Western Roman Empire and the battle of Hastings we have no source for any crossbow in Europe, but obviously this doesn't mean they didn't exist. Wandalstouring 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
However, it is not our job to be assessing primary sources. WP:V and WP:OR means that, where possible, we should be quoting from secondary sources in this context. For example, as to whether Chinese sources or Greek sources are verifiable or not, it should be based on the assessment of published historians.
One note about the "linguistic evidence" relating to crossbows in China which has cropped up in the quoted source above and which may have escaped notice: in Chinese there are two distinct characters for bows and crossbows: 弓 (pronounced gong) and 弩 (pronounced nu). The latter character is used in sources such as the Liutao (六韬; "The six arrow bags"), which dates from the early Zhou Dynasty. --Sumple (Talk) 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be familiar with the topic, could you please order the first eviddence section about Chinese crossbows? Currently it contradicts itself, moving back and forth between Mozi and Sun Tzu. An interesting fact would be the oldest known hardware remains of crossbows (what are they and to what timeframe they are dated + method of dating).
The part about the problems with sources was additional information. As long as the conclusions of a modern scientific secondary work analyzing primary sources aren't quoted the reliability of the sources isn't clear. Wandalstouring 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the sources are confused. But I'm afraid my knowledge of this area is rather patchy... It would be great if someone could dig up a book called "Ancient Chinese Crossbows" or something and just reference it. --Sumple (Talk) 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal issues -an own article

I suggest to make the legal issues an own article in cooperation with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Wandalstouring 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, then we can have a brief paragraph on the Crossbow page with a main article link instead of having the laws for individual countries. cyclosarin 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fletches

The article claims that crossbow bolts often have only 2 fletches, though all the crossbow bolts I've seen have 3. Is this a reference to ancient crossbow bolts? Could someone please clarify this? cyclosarin 11:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's vandalism. Wandalstouring 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could use more info on non western countries

This article details well the development and use of crossbows in Europe. It would be nice if information at that level of detail could also be said of the crossbow in Asia, where it was used earliest and in great quantities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.179.104 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

So far there was no interest by non-European editors to help with more information on crossbows except the very long first evidence section (very important). Wandalstouring 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article structure

the article had a structure in small section, now an editor prefers to turn it into larg chucks of text. I dislike this version, but I'm not totally against rearranging the article. However, I want a discussion before such massive edits happen. I suggest to model the new structure first on the talk page and after everyone agrees to implement it in the article. Wandalstouring 18:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the GA review, micro-sections were holding this back. That was six months ago and there's been no improvement on that front. Why not just try editing it from the current structure instead of rolling back a ton of copyedits? Chris Cunningham 11:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
GA reviews are like Russian roulette and their results themselves are quite disputed, so try a different review process. The one nominating it for GA should at least have had a little bit of edit history or have kindly notified some of the active editors. There is a coverage problem and that is why some sections are so small. The last time we restructured the article, we lumped together what is to say about the thing itself and tried to maintain this evergrowing sections about who in Europe used a crossbow and who invented it. The article is far from covering the topic in detail and has some citation issues. Wandalstouring 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'll be back in six months to check if it's any better. For what it's worth, I've found that if one is going to ignore FA reviews it isn't usually necessary to dispute the entire process and ascribe incompetence to the reviewer, especially when I happen to agree with the conclusion that the review reached. Chris Cunningham 09:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a GA review, not a FA and I stopped it because the article wasn't ready. The nominator thought different, so the current version can't be that bad. Wandalstouring 09:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New layout suggestion

  1. Types of crossbows
    1. Acceleration system
    2. Type of weapon
  2. Crossbow projectiles
  3. Crossbow accessories
  4. History of use
    1. First evidence
    2. Historic use in Europe
    3. Historic use in Africa
    4. Historic use in the Americas
    5. Historic use in Asia
    6. Historic use in the Islamic world
    7. Use of crossbows today
  5. Legal issues (modern and ancient)
  6. See also
  7. Notes
  8. References
  9. External links

suggestion for a new structure. Wandalstouring 09:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit heavy on sectioning in History again, but that sounds okay. I've restored some non-controversial copy-editing for now. Chris Cunningham 10:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You have only recently edited this article. The history section is the key of troubles. Please note that Needham must be quoted in full since many people misquote him for their own agendas. Wandalstouring 10:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I think we need the history section first. The construction section goes on about historic events, for starters. Chris Cunningham 10:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because the section is quite long and detailed. Let's tell people first what kinds of crossbows exist and what their feats are. Afterwards one can read the history section. Wandalstouring 10:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Then we should have a history of crossbows article. It is stylistically poor to discuss innovations before introducing them. I agree that it's probably a good idea to give a brief overview of how crossbows work at the beginning, though. Chris Cunningham 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not about discussing innovations, seems like you misunderstand the article, it is about types of crossbows, like types of guns or bows. Wandalstouring 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm an intelligent adult whose first language is English. I am not confused as to the article's purpose. The point is that the components section discusses such things as the improvements the Saracens made to the design before actually pointing out that the Saracens used the weapon. And that's before the article's completely random introduction of Greek siege warfare. Per the principle of least astonishment, such information should be preceeded by an introduction to the historic takeup of the crossbow by various peoples. Chris Cunningham 11:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats for your confidence. What about moving things in place and rewording the disputed sections. So far, you seem to accept my suggestion. I slightly modified it since there is probably little difference between the introduction and use in the Americas and in Africa. Wandalstouring 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossbows of Central Africa as used by Pygmies

There does not seem to be any mention of the crossbow used widely by Pygmy hunters of Central Africa, in this article.

I believe, the Pygmies copied the 15th century Portuguese crossbow or the got the idea from them at any rate. I was hoping this article would tell me more about the crossbow used by the Pygmies of Africa. Though the article does say that slaves in West Africa used them there is no mention of the Pygmy's crossbow specifically.

A picture of the crossbow I wanted to learn more about - http://www.pygmies.info/baka/hunting.html

I think, but I am not sure, the crossbow is popular with Pygmies because in thick tropical forests there is often not enough room to pull back a large bow. The small monkeys they hunt, being very agile, can also dodge the slower arrow fired from a more conventional bow.

There is a source on the use of crossbows in Western Africa, but that still doesn't cover the Pygmies. Be careful with your thinking cause the Pygmies can as well haver adopted this weapon from other African tribes. Wandalstouring 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History again

This doesn't appear to be going anywhere. There's no need to have all those subsections; if a section needs expanded a comment can be placed to the effect. For now, we should condense the history section so that it's more pleasant to read rather than duplicating the "types" section. Chris Cunningham 10:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply delete all the history that was incorrectly inserted into the types section. Wandalstouring 10:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossedited and approved by MHO

...as someone never been involved into this article, I have been asked by [Wandalstouring] to crossedit this article. Did it and my humble opinion didn´t find a flaw. Good work. I guess it might be a good candidate for GA now. Mausch 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Papal ban?

Shouldn't the papal ban on the crossbows have been mentioned in the 'Europe'-section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.176.96.28 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence for a specific papal ban on crossbows. I think it fits nicely with the Mongol ban on crossbows in China. Wandalstouring 14:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some sources that the pope issued a crossbow ban, but this could've merely a been on wars in general to prevent "Christians from killing Christians." Intranetusa (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please find the source that speak of a papal ban on crossbows. All we could source yet was a ban on ranged weapons. That's a heck of a difference. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prods and pounds vs inch-pounds

I believe there's a unit error in the Design section. This page discusses the subject of total energy of a bow. The force required to draw a bow to full is described in pounds, while the distance the bow is drawn is typically in inches. The total energy the bow has can then be described in inch-pounds, which is one-half of force times distance. Prods and bows will typically have draw-weights in the range of 50-200 lbs, which is why the figures currently in the article of 500 and 800 are definitely [citation needed]. I believe the original author was likely intending to refer to total energy in inch-pounds. Here's some additional info from a crossbow prod manufacturer supporting this usage. So the current figures should probably be amended with ones accurately reflecting the actual draw weight (which is an understandable measure of the force required) of typical medieval crossbows. Sylvank (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use also the metric system. Draw weights are often given as weight measure units only, without any mention of the draw length. 500kg=1000pounds is the maximum draw weight mentioned for handheld crossbows(Hussite Wars, arbalest). Wandalstouring (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ballisates are not crossbows

Removed this section "The smaller sniper version was often called Scorpio.[1] An example for the importance of ballistae in Hellenistic warfare is the Helepolis, a siege tower employed by Demetrius during the Siege of Rhodes in 305 BC. At each level of the moveable tower were several ballistae. The large ballistae at the bottom level were designed to destroy the parapet and clear it of any hostile troop concentrations while the small armorbreaking scorpios at the top level sniped at the besieged. This suppressive shooting would allow them to mount the wall with ladders more safely.[2]"

Crossbows are tension weapons that fired bolts. Ballistas/scorpions are torsion weapons powered by animal sinew, and fired stones and bolts respectively. Also, added more info about the Gastraphetes from the other articles. Intranetusa (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)