Posted by Dave Thewlis on October 26, 2002 at 20:58:49 from 32.106.53.148 user dthewlis.
In Reply to: Re: CROSSBOW posted by Adam Quinan on October 26, 2002 at 18:53:39:
I think we need to be a bit careful here as we're using fairly denotative terms rather loosely.
A crossbow has a rifle-like stock with a bow apparatus fixed to its front and usually fires quarrels rather than arrows. Generally the bow is extremely hard to pull, and in war crossbows complicated pulley systems were sometimes needed. The crossbow was the only weapon of war ever specifically banned by the Church (Roman) -- because since it was so easy to learn to use and so destructive, it endangered the social order.
The term "longbow" refers to the length of the bow related to the height of the archer. The English longbow was a simple bow made of wood (yew, by tradition); its power came from the size of the bow, which was generally as tall as the archer. It was a ballistic weapon, as used at Crecy and Agincourt.
Modern bows are generally composite, not nearly as long as a longbow (compared with the height of the user) but with a lot of the "pull" strength coming from the composite materials. However composite bows are NOT modern; they date back more than two thousand years. The Romans faced "barbarians" who used composite bows, made of glueing strips of horn onto a face of wood.
Today, simple bows are probably fibreglass. I inherited two bow blanks from an older cousin in the mid-50s; they were lemon wood.
There is no doubt in my mind that what the Amazons used in SA were simple bows and arrows, and probably not more than 20-35 lb bows at the greatest.
The crossbow in SD remains a mystery, but I agree that it might have been one of Captain Flint's many memoirs of the past.