When did the whole 'banning citizens from owning weaponry'

Most of it came down to cost.

If you were say, an English archer, you'd probably get some cheap stamped sword but for a "nice one", you'd need to have some coin, and a general reason to have it.

Reason being that you're some sort of knight or some such that actively goes out and fights.

Not sure about the Vikings or other areas, probably would explain the proliferation of axes and things that could double as a tool.

Whoever owns the spears owns the power.

>>32280677
That guy is up to his neck in armour.
His thigh armour has armour on its armour's armour.

But his dick is a bright red target.

And he's not even a cavalryman.

File: 1436257383810.jpg (95KB, 528x704px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 528x704px

>>32280677
Around the time of the revolutionary wars is when it got ingrained in Europe.
The ancient regime didn't want armed plebs because they could revolt.
the revolutionary governments didn't want armed plebs in case they react/rebel again .

But even before that weapon bans would happen from time to time. But that was mostly about certain weapons being taboe (crossbows against fellow christians) or markers of class (HRE ban on swords leading to messer).
On the other hand many medieval towns and fiefs had mandated the possession and proficiency in arms or at least encouraged it. For instance the Flemish city of gent manged to amass 20000 men under arms form a population of about 80000 (city and nearby). Brits had their long bowmen, swashbucklers ect.

After WWI & II there was a brief laxing of those laws because of the vast numbers of surplus weapons circulating on the continent and more pressing issues at hand.
Now a days the weapon restrictions is mostly due to "but anon you don't need that" due to urbanization. Every farmer still has his shotty, same with the middle class and rich out of the urban zones. But the city dwellers have mostly never even seen an armed citizen.

At least in medieval England, the owning of arms was not only encouraged, but outright required. You had to own the best weapons&armor someone of your status could afford and you had to train in them and know how to maintain them.

>>32280677

The Second Lateran Council under Pope Innocent II in 1139 banned the use of crossbows, as well as slings and bows, against Christians.

That's the oldest example I know of.

The wheel lock pistol was banned in some places for a while because unlike a lit matchlock pistol, a loaded and ready pistol could be concealed on your person and nobody could tell (match cord has a distinct smell when lit, also people notice you being on fire).

The fear was that someone could hide a pistol in their robes and assassinate a noble or king with no warning.

Basically, when the establishment are feeling threatened, they try to disarm the people.

>>32280677
Even before 1291 an armed populus were fundamental to some free cities and valleys in the hre which would later become Switzerland. The only disarmament messures were put in place by Napoleon and the socio fascist of this day and age.
An armed society is a pilar of freedom and democracy.

>>32280677
Does that particular style of rifle have a name? It looks fucking beautiful. 10/10 would bring on an austistic black powder hunt.

>>32282488
The proper term for the pole seems to be a musket-rest, and the heavier style musket is called an arquebus and were typically matchlocks.

File: tanegashima.jpg (124KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 800x600px

>>32282488
Arquebus, an early matchlock firearm. It's a rifle that Japan loved so much that they made more than the entirety of europe

>>32282670
follow-up, those satchels from his bandoleer are called apostles.

I love this picture, too. I'm having a hard time telling if it's artwork from something like a final fantasy game or a depiction of an actual army's soldiers.

>>32280677
20,000 BC when Oog the village elder banned sharp rock ownership because "berry-pickers no neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed sharp rock, should be only for warriors and mammoth hunters (with rock-carved permission tablet)"

>>32280696
You're an idiot.

>>32280696
You didn't need a reason. You were required to own, maintain, and train with the best quality of arms and armor you could afford.

>>32280696
Also axes made for fighting are terrible tool axes. Trying to fell a tree with a dane axe would be like trying to fell a tree with a machete

>>32280677
In medieval times there was no such thing as a sword ban for peasants in Europe. Everyone who could afford them could buy one, and in later periods (13th to 15th century) swords weren't even expensive. If you translate the cost for a well made, average sword from 1300 to todays' standards, it would be around the region of a cheap smartphone.

>>32280716
It's so the enemy can see his raging erection during battle.
You know he's the alpha male when his dick is literally nine inches longer than yours, and nobody fucks with the alpha male. That's why they call him the black knight.

File: 1480181788263.jpg (30KB, 540x488px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 540x488px

>>32280677
It's only natural for our rulers to try to limit our power. To the political class we are nothing more than tax chattel, would the farmer give his animals the means to revolt? No.

>>32282773
It's not that hard to cut down a tree with a machete.

>>32284101

I'd really love to see you do that on anything bigger than a birch tree.

>>32283591
He's an arquebusier too

I'm almost certain that what he does in the battle is basically fire and load, and in between those masturbate furiously, hence the easy access.

>>32282710
100% fantasy. No way there would be an armet on the field with a full sized arquebus. No crotch protection, no back leg protection, rondels, leather gloves (thick ones at that), and a whole bunch of unnecessary plates and edges sticking off. It really is a mess. On top of that, anyone even wearing full armor would be mounted and use a pistol or carbine.

>>32280696
Never ceases to amaze me how people with absolutely no knowledge on the matter pipe off like faggots. I won't even begin to point out moronic inaccuracies in your little fantasy of how things might have been

>>32280677
Peasants could gnerally own whatever they could afford in the west, and would do so as a matter of course.

>>32280696
>some reason to own one
No. If you weren't literally a jew, you were expected to be armed as well as your level of wealth allowed pretty much everywhere.


>Not sure about the Vikings or other areas, probably would explain the proliferation of axes and things that could double as a tool.
Waraxes are useless as tools.


>some coin
By some do you mean one?

>When did the whole 'banning citizens from owning weaponry' meme start?
Around the industrial revolution, when citizens could practically cause problems for governments. Before that it wasn't really necessary, due to the prohibitive expense in terms of actual monetary cost, or the time, effort, and skills required to produce enough for the plebs to have enough quality arms.

Having said that, there have been examples of it stretching back at least a couple thousand years to the ancient Greeks, and there were plenty of examples of arms control put in place for other reasons, eg. so the high-quality raw materials available to produce the best arms wasn't depleted (eg. in England, 10 ash bows for every one yew bow, or whatever it was).

Also another important point, citizenship in the modern context was extremely limited. Australia for instance, citizenship only goes back to around World War 2. Before that, living in the country was good enough for the circumstances of the day, as mass movement of people was impractical. When mass movement internally and internationally becomes practical, that's when citizenship laws and passports for the entire population of a country becomes relevant, instead of citizenship of a city or town which would grant special privileges over those dirty farming folk.

>>32285803
>No. If you weren't literally a jew, you were expected to be armed as well as your level of wealth allowed pretty much everywhere.

In england at least, if you weren't armed and had at least a sword and longbow in the later medieval period you'd be breaking the law.

File: moft excellent fyre arm.jpg (11KB, 215x271px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 215x271px

>>32280677
>When did the whole 'banning citizens from owning weaponry' meme start?

When a knights armour could be defeated by a crippled leper with a gun.

>>32285826
Cite sources.

>>32285853

I kek'd

>>32285894
Statute of Winchester, my man. You had to *at least* have a longbow by law, regardless of your wealth, the average person. Even as early as the 13th century people were required by law to be armed.

>>32280805
This. Urbanization has pretty much led to most of the problems people like us are faced with today.

>>32286002
I thought your previous post was implying that possessing said weapons was illegal, rather than the reverse.

Carry on.

>>32280677
Blame the 18-19th century revolutions.
New governments didn't want to get overthrown like they did.

That's also why I love Austria (the only land in Europe where you can open carry gunns AND medieval weaponry).

>>32280677
I remember reading that the wearing of swords in pre-revolutionary France was illegal for people of lowborn status as it was a symbol of class.

>>32286002
I'm reading it now on WikiSource, and that's for landowners. The average person did not own land back then. The people that statute is referring to were basically upper-class.

There's no mention of longbows, only bows in general, and it simply says if you don't have land, you may carry bow and arrows if you have the means and you're not in the forest (ie. you're not a filthy poacher)

>>32286151
>The Assize of Arms of 1181 was a proclamation of King Henry II of England concerning the obligation of all freemen of England to possess and bear arms in the service of king and realm and to swear allegiance to the king, on pain of "vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs."

>>32286151
No, it clearly says:
>AND Further, It is commanded, That every Man have in his house Harness for to keep the Peace after the ancient Assise; that is to say, Every Man between fifteen years of age, and sixty years, shall be assessed and sworn to Armor according to the quantity of their Lands and Goods ; that is to wit, from Fifteen Pounds Lands, and Goods Forty Marks, an Hauberke, capel de fer, a Sword, a Knife, and an Horse from Ten Pounds of Lands, and Twenty Marks Goods, an Hauberke, a Capel, a Sword, and a Knife ; and from Five Pound Lands, a Gambison, a Capel de Fer, a Sword, and a Knife ; and from Forty Shillings Land and more, unto One hundred Shillings of Land, a Sword, a Bow and Arrows, and a Knife ; and he that hath less than Forty Shillings yearly, shall be sworn to keep Gis-armes; Knives, and other less Weapons ; and he that hath less than Twenty Marks in Goods, shall have Swords, Knives, and other less Weapons ; and all other that may, shall have Bows and Arrows out of the Forest, and in the Forest Bows and Boults.

If you're poor as fuck, you're required to have a bow at the very least, you are correct that it does not specify longbows. However if you have as little as twenty marks of all of your own possessions, every piece of clothing, every tool, etc, etc, which is equivalent to the max an average laborer could feasibly make in a single year, let alone their life, you are required to own a sword.

>>32286207
>freemen

>>32286224
>you're required to have a bow at the very least,
No.

>and all other that may, shall have
>that may

And free labourers were basically the upper echelon of the poor. Most people weren't free to choose who they laboured under, they were serfs. It's the feudal system, remember.

>>32286100
>OC guns and medieval arms
Fucking based/10

>>32286350
Yes, freemen, which refers to every male citizen of England at the time.

I bet you think serfdom was literally slavery or something...

>>32286473
>Yes, freemen, which refers to every male citizen of England at the time.
Citation needed. Also, there was no such thing as English citizenship back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#Freemen

I bet you think serfs were allowed to just bugger off and do their own thing or something...

File: 26512357882345.jpg (38KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x800px

>>32280677
Mostly to prevent or mitigate peasant revolts in Feudal systems.

File: Hans Sebald Beham Bauernschlaegerei.jpg (1MB, 2103x1400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2103x1400px

>>32280696
Gotta point out that cheap swords weren't fucking stamped in pre industrial times, cheap massive steel sheets are a modern commodity.
And of course conan style pouring into moulds doesn't work with iron.

>>32280716
Could be a dragoon.

>>32280677

Brits banned crossbows when some city snobs became offended with rural peons walking around with them

Chopsticks came to be because Chinks banned knives

Banning weapons is as old as tribes

File: crossbow.jpg (29KB, 622x463px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 622x463px

>>32285853
Earlier than that even. The church were often petitioned to order the banning of crossbows and longbows because they gave the peasantry the ability to kill those of more noble blood who wore full armour rig.

With the 2nd Lateran Council they actually issued a law against crossbows in very specific circumstances but it went largely unenforced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Lateran_Council
>Canon 29: The use of bows and crossbows against Christians was prohibited.

>>32287859
>Chopsticks came to be because Chinks banned knives
Source?

>>32286100
Can you really though? I was under the impression that those licenses were pretty hard to get and were generally for concealed carry.

>>32286350
>and all other that may, shall have
>that may
i.e., all others who are able to SHALL have a bow

>>32280677
It happened very recently, at least in the UK. It started after WWI.

Before the early modern period every citizen had a duty to own arms and armour suitable for what their social class was (can't expect a farmer to afford plate armour) and they were required to be reasonably well practiced in the use of them.

The whole idea of poorly armed peasant rabbles is hollywood bullshit, medieval armies were pretty well equipped with weapons and armour. (most missile troops in the Late Medieval period would wear both a mail haubergeon AND a brigandine on top, as well as a helmet and maybe plate leg armour.

>>32287940
But that's bullshit since every country ignored them.

Crossbows were not magical armour defeaters, as if so WHY THE FUCK DID THEY KEEP WEARING ARMOUR?

>>32288225
Bonus to charisma

>>32288225
Crossbows were better than bows in one very important way: you can train someone to be good enough on a battlefield in a day while it might take months or years to do the same with a bow.

>>32288359
>you can train someone to be good enough on a battlefield in a day
Gross exaggeration, it's far harder to be a good crossbowman than a rifleman and even that can't be done in a day.
But you're right in that bows take a lifetime.
Also it was literally just the english who kept using bows like savages because of the welsh longbow, while everybody else in europe used the superior crossbow.

>>32288394
What? The Longbow was far superior in range and accuracy to a crossbow, bro. Crossbows just required less skill.

>>32288741
>range
depends on the crossbow
>accuracy
lol no the opposite, how could you think that?
>less skill
The opposite again, crosbows require less upperbody strenght and conditioning, but just as much skill if not more because of all the mechanical parts involved
The only advantage of the bow is rate of fire, in exchange for penetration and power (much much weaker draw weight and much lighter arrows)

>>32286350
>No.
Yes.
>and all other that may, shall have
>shall have

Nonetheless the serfs still earned money just the same, A serf only has an obligation to work 3 days out of a week on the lord's property, the rest they worked for themselves, and they sold the crops they got for themselves as well (of course with tithe and tax). The laborers and cottagers were in fact poorer almost universally than the average villein, the reason they're labors in the first place is because they're unable to support themselves through farming.

>>32288801
Far far less skill for crossbow

>>32288941
90% of the necessary skills are the same, bows are much harder to aim consistently, crossbows are a bit harder to reload.

File: 1473772686214.gif (489KB, 497x373px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 497x373px

>>32282705
>The only rifle they could produce domestically at their tech level and was the pinnacle of Japanese warfare until Commodore Perry drove a steam ironclad battleship into Tokyo harbor
Ftfy

>>32288957
You're wrong, man.

http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html

First paragraph.

>>32288359
When did I mention longbows vs crossbows? I'm saying that archers very rarely defeated armour because armour worked.
It doesn't take years to train someone with a longbow, nor did they have to train from a young age, that's a meme propagated by shit historians who didn't actually practice warbow archery. Longbows took more training than crossbows, but to become really good at either I'd say it would take roughly the same amount of time.
Longbows are easier to make, cheaper, and can be unstrung (you want to unstring them for long term storage) whereas crossbows can't be (so the strings could get damp if in the elements long enough, or the wax in the string fails to stop water, like for the Genoese at Crecy)
Also, longbows have better range and a far better power/draw weight ratio due to the short length of draw on a medieval crossbow. Crossbows were favoured if a nation didn't have the ability to train or maintain bowmen, but the English proved that in practice the longbow had a slight edge in open battlefield situations, whereas the crossbow was very good for sieges.

>>32289028
That's the opposite of a reputable source what's wrong with you, read a fucking book.

>>32289052
It's anywhere you'd care to look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow
http://www.medieval-life-and-times.info/medieval-weapons/crossbow.htm

>>32289065
That second link is just as ridiculous, choke full of myths and it reads like it's written by a grade schooler.
Wikipedia confirms everything I've written.
Learn to distinguish up to date historical/archeological information from fucking 90s style school project websites with no sources you idiot.

>>32289103
>Wikipedia confirms everything I've written.

No it doesn't. Read the article.

"bowmen were considered a separate and superior caste, despite being usually drawn from the common class, as their archery skill-set was essentially developed from birth (similar to many horseman cultures) and was impossible to reproduce outside a pre-established cultural tradition"

vs.

"the crossbow was the first projectile weapon to be simple, cheap, and physically undemanding enough to be operated by large numbers of conscript soldiers, thus enabling virtually any nation to field a potent force of ranged crossbowmen with little expense beyond the cost of the weapons themselves"

The second link is the one that Wikipedia cites. If you're going to say that Wikipedia is reliable then so is that source.

Also,
"Although a longbow had greater range and penetration, and could achieve comparable accuracy and faster shooting rate than a wooden or composite crossbow, the latter can be used effectively after a week of training, while a comparable single-shot skill with a longbow could take years of practice"

Robert Hardy (1992). “Longbow: A Social and Military History”. Lyons & Burford. ISBN 1-85260-412-3, p. 75

>>32289142
That's a dated, anglocentric worldview m8. The English used longbows until every European yew source was depleted in the 17th century, literally because muh noble English archer meme. Everyone else used crossbows and hand gonnes since the 13th century for the former and the 15th century for the latter.

>>32289001
The Japanese ones were actually of excellent quality, but the peace of Edo period undercut the motivation to make dramatic redesigns.

>>32280677
Banning weaponry has been common for a very long time. Matt Easton made a video covering the subject some couple of years back or so.

It generally wasn't legal to carry weapons in cities unless you were a guard or had a valid reason to carry one. It's only during the renaissance that this changed and everyone was allowed to carry a weapon in public places.

>>32289166
What are you trying to say? I don't care who was using what or when.

>crossbows require just as much skill if not more because of all the mechanical parts involved

You are wrong.

>>32289195
I didn't say that m8

Crossbows are flatter shooting, easier to aim, and easier to keep at the ready. They were more material intensive to produce and slower to fire, but a full sized 900lb draw weight arbalest would hit harder than the strongest of longbow like the 200lbers found on the Mary Rose.

Memeing about the longbow is like of in 500 years french schools decided the mas39 was the best gun of the early 20rh century even though every country and every modern rifle is Mauser derived.

Like everything people know as common knowledge about the middle ages, it's the fault of fucking victorians making up history.

>>32288941
>>32289166
Fan fact: English archers were Sunday range mall ninja civilian commandos, crossbowmen where full time military professionals. Really makes you think.

>>32289250

>>32288801
>>less skill
>The opposite again, crosbows require less upperbody strenght and conditioning, but just as much skill if not more because of all the mechanical parts involved
>The only advantage of the bow is rate of fire, in exchange for penetration and power (much much weaker draw weight and much lighter arrows)

>crosbows require less upperbody strenght and conditioning, but just as much skill if not more
>crosbows require just as much skill if not more

>>32289276
Don't be surprised when there is more than one poster responding to your autism.
Both are writing better researched stuff than you sources.

>>32280677
>When did the whole 'banning citizens from owning weaponry' meme start?
From the beginning of humanity. Every piece of written hystru has mentioning about weapons controls. Usually for slaves and conquered nations like Greek Helots.

>>32282331
This true many European countries had obligation for city citizens to own weapons according to property census. But at the same time these cities had weapon carry controls and inside city wall there were no freedom of weapon carry, they should left at guard posts or taverns. Only city guards and members of knighthood could freely carry weapons.

>>32287859
>Brits banned crossbows
No they didn't.

>>32289142
>"bowmen were considered a separate and superior caste, despite being usually drawn from the common class, as their archery skill-set was essentially developed from birth (similar to many horseman cultures) and was impossible to reproduce outside a pre-established cultural tradition"
Meanwhile the eastern roman empire was able to turn city dwellers into professional horse archers wielding composit bows that had a draw equal to a longbow.

Which they'd draw on fucking horseback. Training would top out at two years. foot archers were flat out militiamen but used equally heavy bows, and didn't have a "lifetime" of training, being recruited and armed by the state as adults.
That page is full of shit.

>>32280805
>>32286068

As time goes on, it strikes me more and more that urbanization is a mistake.

File: crecy.gif (52KB, 800x567px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 800x567px

>>32289166
>literally because muh noble English archer meme.
Agincourt wasn't a meme.
Crecy wasn't a meme.

You a mad Frenchman or something bro?

>>32292052
Both won because of tactical advantage and by the superiorly armoured english men at arm. Longbows only served the purpose of discouraging charges with unarmored horses.
Also worth noting every other battle in the hundred years war which was in fact won by the french, weird how only the 3-4 battles that defied expectations are remembered by the english.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1WZLVZYBwQ

>>32292111
>Also worth noting every other battle in the hundred years war which was in fact won by the french
Strange how the war went for so long with so many French "victories" right bro?

>>32292163
That's the nature of pre industrial europe, there was always a war going on. Besides can't you see that "argument" goes both ways? Even more so since the french were the defending side.

>>32283557
Hi-Point of the 1300s.

>>32292226
>Even more so since the french were the defending side
I agree, fighting on their own lands, with a greater population, it's incredible the French took so long to win.

>>32280677
If you really want to know about the history of the citizens being required, allowed banned from ownership of weapons and how it led to the American 2nd amendment being developed.

Read Origins and Development of the Second Amendment by David T. Hardy

It's less than a hundred pages and packed full of information.

>>32280696
You sir are and imbecile and should hang your head in shame.

>>32292268
I detect sarcasm, in case you're uninformed the 100 year wars was essentially a century of pillaging with the english constantly on the run, it was hard to chase them all away and many went on to form mercenary free lances and never left main land europe.

>>32292052
...you mean the two battle where archers failed to break the opposition, and the battle only ended when they engaged in hand to hand combat?

The same archers who were well known for bring unusually well armed and armored and eager for hand to hand combat?

>>32292302
>in case you're uninformed the 100 year wars was essentially a century of pillaging with the english constantly on the run


Actually, it was a century of the French being politically out-maneuvered.

Then a crazy peasant girl claim she spoke to God and the rest is history.

>>32292316
See where it says "crossbows"? On the French lines.

Now if crossbows were so good, why did they have absoloutely no effect on the outcome of any of these battles either?

We're both applying the same logic here, so we're either both wrong or both right, which is it bro?

>>32292329
One man's rapists on the run are another's political manoeuvres

>>32292343
You mean the crossbows that were deployed horribly?

Deployed sans pavises- a completely fucking vital piece of kit-, forced into action with wet strings, and run down by their own cavalry at crecy?
Those crossbowmen?

>MUH AGINCOURT
The agincourt where the french shooters were comprised of both archers and crossbowmen? That agincourt?
>WHY DEY NO IMPORTANT
I don't know, maybe because the french placed them BEHIND their cavalrymen, who immediately proceeded to charge, followed by tens of thousands of infantry? Makes shooting into your enemy rather impossible.

>We're both applying the same logic here, so we're either both wrong or both right, which is it bro?
No. You're a moron who doesn't understand anything about the battles in question beyond "muh longbow".

>>32292360
>what is Burgundy
>what is Britanny
>what is the Treaty of Troyes
>implying France was even a country at the time and not a bunch of petty dukes pissing all over each other

>>32292388
>You mean the crossbows that were deployed horribly?
So the French were just stupid then?

I guess I concede to your point bro, the French were idiots, okay.

>>32292388
>Deployed sans pavises- a completely fucking vital piece of kit
would it be fair to say that crossbows were shit unless you carted around a mansized shield with them at all times??

File: 1481156058299.jpg (45KB, 533x594px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 533x594px

>>32280696
>stamped swords

>>32292343
If you cared to read anything at all about that particular battle you'd find that it had rained and the crossbows strings got wet (longbows were kept unstrung, the string in a waterproof pouch), and the pavise shields were still in the supply train and the french had no respect for the genoese mercenaries and charged over them. The rain making the terrain muddy is also what made the charge ineffective incidentally.

Crossbows affected plenty of battles throughout the middle ages, yet nobody is wanking over them because they still believe ww2 propaganda which equated longbowmen to paratroopers.

>>32292408
Yes in those handful of battles the french made huge mistakes and played into the hands of the english men at arms. Mostly due to their excessive confidence because of their track record.

>>32292417
The longbowmen had to stick giant pikes all over the ground in front of them to be remotely effective. In the many battles were they were caught unprepared cavalry tore right trough them.

>>32292417
No. They're flatly superior weapons in ANY situation in which cover can be found or made. Meaning sieges, skirmishing, or foraging parties. The things which comprise most warfare.
They're also better when working inside/around pikes formations, and can perform better against armor.

Longbows have an advantage if you're doing nothing but having missile troops stand in the open and shoot each other, and you haven't hit the point in history where said troops aren't prone to wearing brigandine with plate limb defenses.

It's a narrow niche to be better in, which is why nobody but the English gave half a shit about the longbow.

File: 1416196732450.jpg (698KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1920x1280px

>>32280805
That's a pretty good summation anon, have a butt.

>>32292527
eww

>>32292496
>Crossbows affected plenty of battles throughout the middle ages
Yet none of you crossbow fags have provided a single shred of sources for this claim.

I've perused this entire thread and all it is is a bunch of "PERFIDIOUS ALBION MEMED THE LONGBOW" with absoloutely nothing backing up why the crossbow was any better beyond the usual "training was easier".

>Mostly due to their excessive confidence because of their track record.
Sublte bro, we get it, you're a frog-sucking Frenchfag.

>In the many battles were they were caught unprepared cavalry tore right trough them.
Once again, none of this explains why the crossbow was any better because it had its own disadvantages and foibles as well.

All you've said is "the longbow sucked" without providing anything as to why the crossbow was any better as a weapon.

>>32292520
>which is why nobody but the English gave half a shit about the longbow.
No, it was more the fact that everybody else played into the "muh noble knight on horseback" meme.

Don't forget its a Welsh weapon by the way.

>>32292551
Read a fucking book.

>>32292569
>implying the english didn't have noble knights on horseback too
>implying the crossbow wasn't a better weapon against armoured knights and that's precisely why it was employed

>>32292591
>implying the crossbow was ever a decisive factor in any battle of the middle ages.

>implying the French didn't ride down their own crossbowmen at Crecy because they sucked so hard

>>32292569
>it's welsh weapon
Which the English adopted.
Which the English made into a meme.
Which the English perfected the use of.
Meanwhile, the some english recruited welsh as.. spearmen, with most of the men with longbows being english.
It's welsh the way guns are chinese.

>>32292631
No missile weapon was a decisive factor in ANY continental battle in the medieval period.

>>32292631
The point was never that the crossbow is better than the memelongbow, which singlehandedly wins battles and pierces knights, just better than the actual longbow, which discourages the use of unarmored troops and is only employed by the brits for cultural reasons

>>32292647
So why are we having this discussion?

The English used the longbow well, ergo, it was just as good as the crossbow when used by the English.

>>32292632
>Which the English made into a meme.
Did Italians make the crossbow into a meme? A great many crossbowmen were Italian mercenaries.

>>32292669
>brits
wew lad

>>32292687
That's not how weapons work you nigger.

Didn't Rome for the longest time have a weapon ban inside the city?

>>32292706
We're talking about warfare here, not fudds going hunting.

Comparisons in strategic and tactical deployment is perfectly valid, you double nigger.

File: 1397594901731.jpg (142KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 530x800px

>>32292549
Better?

>>32292687
>The English used the longbow well, ergo, it was just as good as the crossbow when used by the English.
Except it wasn't. Hence the Brits still ordering crossbows for their garrisons. Longbows are also cheaper to produce and much easier for untrained commoners to maintain, which is a major factor for a relatively poor kingdom that NEEDS those commoners to arm themselves it it wants to survive.


>Did Italians make the crossbow into a meme? A great many crossbowmen were Italian mercenaries.
Crossbows were used in great numbers by:
Italians
Germans
Poles
Hungarians
Frogs

Italians provided a lot of mercenaries because the peninsula was the fucking promised land for anyone looking to start a mercenary outfit. It's also fucking god tier for sailors, as they have cover, never get charged by cavalry, and will need to fuck up men in armor at close range.

Guess what Italy was full of?


Germans loves crossbows so much they started using them on horseback, and the hungarians/polish response to the mongols was
>more knights
>more castles
>more crossbows
It worked. The steppeniggers bitched incessantly about crossbows. Unsurprising, as there's virtually nothing you can do to a man lobbing bolts out of arrow slit at you.

>>32280805
>the revolutionary governments didn't want armed plebs in case they react/rebel again .


Actually the revolutionary gov. had planned to put an article in the declaration of the right of man and citizen about the right to have weapons for every citizens.

"Every citizen has the right to have arms in his possession and to use them, either for the common defense or for his own defense, against any unlawful aggression which would endanger the life or liberty of a citizen or more."

Article 10. It was supposed to be a human right, but in the end, they decided it was too obvious and did not need an article. It was considered a natural right (so even superior to human right).

>>32292729
Warbows were unable to pierce tempered steel plate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg), no matter how well deployed they can't do the job of heavy crossbows with over four times the drawweight, the reason the english kept using them well into obsolescence was entirely cultural

>>32292782
That's dumb as fuck, so they plan to but never introduce it because it's too obvious?

>>32292791
>>32292770
Okay, I'll settle for the crossbow being superior but the longbow still being a good weapon in the right (English) hands.

That's the best I can do.

>>32292782
Which goverment planned to do this?

>>32292791
Also this. You have ACTUAL SOLDIERS writing treatises on how people need to shut the fuck up about longbows and start using muskets because the longbow has become entirely incapable of doing anything.

The English kept fucking using them.

>>32292842
There literally isn't a SINGLE battle where you couldn't replace the longbows with crossbows and get the same or better results.

>>32292782
Nope.

>>32280805 was talking about revolutionary governments as a whole, Not just ours.Most of them were in Europe.

>>32292818

They never introduced it in the declaration of the right of man and citizen. Cause it was supposed to be, at that time, rights that were not self-evident.

The right for every citizen to have weapons was seen as evident, so obvious that it did not need to be written because no one would ever think about challenging it. So it was just the regular law.

They didn't see it coming. Well it was centuries later.

>>32292876
>There literally isn't a SINGLE battle where you couldn't replace the longbows with crossbows and get the same or better results.

Except like, Crecy, you know, with the strings and the wet weather,

Jackass.

>>32292843

French gov. IT was when they were writting the Declaration of the right of am and citizen. So circa 1789.

>>32292889
>was talking about revolutionary governments as a whole, Not just ours.Most of them were in Europe.


My bad.

>>32292904
That's fucking dumb, considering they do not enforce that right for everyone to be armed either.

>>32292929
English would have still won because of the terrain and melee.

>>32292929
>Except like, Crecy, you know, with the strings and the wet weather,
Except like crecy, you know, had the french forcing the crossbows up without pavises to shoot at men who were uphill.

The English still would have caused them to retreat if they used crossbows of their own, and the french still would have ridden into their own men in a fit of rage. That wasn't even the fucking decisive stage of the battle. It wasn't even important, the battle was ultimately decided in melee.

>>32292993
Oh, and on top of all this, the english were shooting fucking cannons into the geonese.

Longbow or crossbow wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the missile duel.

>>32292730
no put some undies on

>>32293032
cannon

>>32291836
It was inevitable, and for all the supposed bad, we got a lot of good.

>>32286350
You are assigning French feudal terms to an English law and assuming they are equivalent. They are not.

Britain's serf class was not nearly as entrenched as the continental serf class.

>>32287967
It was more like knives were frowned upon at the table. Cutting food while at the table was/is seen as unlucky, too. I don't know the connect with chopsticks is, I am pretty sure forks were just not considered for eating when compared to chopsticks.

you nerds will bitch about anything

I love it. really. you guys know alot about everything memebows included

>>32292770
>It worked.
It didn't. They lost every battle and then were saved by Ögedei Khan death. Mongol Empire fell into civil war and dissolved.

>>32299855
>They lost every battle
Why would you just lie on the internet?

>>32280696
>stamped
>sword
>STAMPED

Stamping wasn't even invented until the late 1800s.

>>32280677
When king Henry I took over. He came from Normandy, assumed the thrown as acting Lord over lords, just untill the war was over, of course. Then got everyone to agree to let him be King.

But to do that, and to rule over the Saxxon's (or Anglo's, honestly get the 2 confused), he needed some sort way to quirl rebellions. And what better way than taking their gold and weapons away? No weapons meant it was harder to over throw their invaders turned rulers, and no gold meant no making them either.

This is also why he established the Catholic church and got the Pope to sponser the church in England. To stop rebellions from his new subjects.

Since then, its been the staple of English society to be as big of cucks as him, because they know they'd be over thrown if any old smuck has a rifle. Since then, only those who vowed and showed loyalty to the King/Queen has ever got to hold a weapon.