Chu Ko Nu, real life repeater crossbow from Medieval China
- 主题发起人 Uesugi Kenshin
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Mamlaz 说:You are speaking nonsense, a foregrip is just another name for a pistol grip.
Your description of how a chu ko nu works is so hilarious you just made my day
Do I have to draw a diagram for you or make a replica of the Chu tomb chu ko nu for you to stop being such a knob? Seriously, you can't even visualize how it works?
Yes, it is. It's clear you have no experience with archery, or at the very least only modern archery.
No he won't, and he won't have problems with doing so with a repeating crossbow that has a draw weight greater than 50 lbs.
You do realize that drawing a bow is different from lifting weights or doing chin ups? You do realize they utilize different muscles? You do realize that drawing a heavy weight bow is 80% technique and only 20% of actually physically having the strength? Have you ever even drawn a heavy weight bow at 32"? Go find an archery club that specializes in warbows and drawing to 32" practice with them, and then come talk to me.
That is grossly incorrect. They are from the Free Company of Aquitaine, not the English Warbow society. If you actually see some videos by people from the English Warbow society drawing a heavy weight war bow, you will notice the technique is quite different. In your video, he's not using his whole weight, he's hunching up his shoulders, and his stance isn't as wide as it should be.
In your video, he is effectively using a modern archery technique to draw the bow. Look up Joe Gibbs or Mark Stretton, and watch their technique.
Or how about this image of Steve Stratton's 9 year old son drawing a 52lb yew bow. Steve Stratton even says that your body adjusts to the weight quickly.
In addition, how about you read some threads on MyArmoury from some people from the English Warbow society, and other groups who shoot heavy draw weight bows who corroborate that a reasonably fit adult man would have little to no trouble pulling a 90-100 lb bow, and that the issue that an archer needs to work on is consistency, and knowing how to judge distances. Specifically read the posts that Glennan Carnie has made.
Please, tell me to get out of here again.
Mamlaz
Sergeant Knight at Arms
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Sure.
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Haha, says the man who believes the foregrip is being held during crossbow spanning
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Yes.
ThegnAnsgar 说:
They utilize a lot of the same muscles though, merely in different motion.
ThegnAnsgar 说:
That is just completely wrong.
Otherwise you would have dudes drawing 150 pounders after a couple weeks training.
Proper archery form can be learned in a couple days/weeks worth of lessons, it's not rocket science, its just form.
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Yeah, its not like I am a member of an archery society or anything
ThegnAnsgar 说:
They are also from the The Barebow Archery Club, so what?
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Not really, their movements are slightly different because they are usually drawing even heavier bows...
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Are you seriously criticising bigbowbrum?
The dude has been active in traditional archery for years
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Their way of shooting is not the only way of shooting, there is not a single surviving medieval archery manual to set that rule lol
Next thing you will find a HEMA club and state that their form of sword and shield is the only proper one
If you actually look at historical depictions, bigbowbrum is doing it correctly;
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Haha, you just spend the last day googleing stuff to make such a generic rebuttal.
You just wrote a span of leisure statements, just to sideline the topic from your claims about crossbow spanning.
All this written, this entire post, and you state literally nothing about the original reason for this discussion?
Draw me like one of your french crossbows, provide proof that you can span a high draw crossbow with one hand in a pump action movement.
Hope you are into robotics, because human muscle power will not do.
ThegnAnsgar 说:
Alright;
Get out of here.
You're both being dicks. Best stop.
ThegnAnsgar isn't, he is just debating the topic of the thread.
Certainly a lot less than mamlaz, yes.
...So anyway, I've always been kinda fascinated by these. The trick is that spanning the bow and the release is all done in one motion, wasn't it? With the accuracy and power concerns, it seems almost more like a piece of artillery. Seems like a great indirect fire weapon if you've got a mob of angry peasants with them. The bolts were made without fletching, right?
From what I remember reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms years ago, weren't there lots of these kind of volume-of-fire style weapons in Chinese warfare?
Are there any records of the way these repeating crossbow troops were actually deployed?
From what I remember reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms years ago, weren't there lots of these kind of volume-of-fire style weapons in Chinese warfare?
Are there any records of the way these repeating crossbow troops were actually deployed?
I am going to stop regardless, because it's clear he's not getting it.
Mamlaz
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Zarthas 说:
Yes, the tiller itself does not have a nut, meaning the upper bolt magazine is where the not is and that is where the string is held.
Upon closing the span the string is released alongside the bolt.
This is followed with two issues, namely, you have to fire from the hip and you basically cannot aim with it but just point it at a general direction;
Though, if you practiced with it enough, I guess you could safely predict the trajectory at least on short distances.
Zarthas 说:
Correct.
That is one of the reasons most historians consider it to be a low poundage civilian weapon or even just a gimmick.
A bolt is short and without fletchings it will not stay stable in flight for long, meaning that having heavier draw weights would be nonsensical.
In fact, they reconstructed the famed foregrip crossbow that my respected thread colleague mentioned and it looks rather silly for anything apart from assassinating your mailman;
Zarthas 说:
As I recall, there is still a debate going on in Chinese circles about certain translations of those works and whether they mean repeating crossbow of multishot(multiple bolts per release) crossbows like this;
The work was written during the Ming dynasty after all.
All in all, the repeating crossbow, while it existed, was not popular, for obvious reasons.
The vast, vast, vast majority of crossbow depictions and descriptions are the usual Chinese crossbow designs.
Zarthas 说:
While the Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel does speak about these, the actual historical texts from the period of the Three Kingdoms and Later Han dynasty, the Hou Han Shu, and the San Guo Zhi, including Pei Songzhi's (Liu-Song dynasty historian of the 5th century AD) commentaries including other historical documents that we don't have access to, and the Zizhi Tongjian (a Song dynasty historical text that is mostly a timeline made from other historical texts of the various dynasties from Zhou dynasty of the 5th century BC, to the later Zhou (completely different) of the 10th century AD), attests that the weapon which Zhuge Liang used and either invented/improved (it's debated if it was an already existing design, or if he just improved upon it), was an arcuballista that shot multiple javelin sized projectiles all at once.
The novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms comes from oral traditions that existed from the Western Jin dynasty , but the first written work was the Sanguozhi Pinghua written during the Yuan. Luo Guangzhong then wrote the Sanguozhi Tong Shu Yan Yi, utilizing Pei Songzhi's work, Tang dynasty poetry, Yuan dynasty operas, and his own interpretation. The translated novel that exists today is an edit from the Qing dynasty in 1679, where Mao Zonggang and his father Mao Lun edited, revised, and changed certain aspects of the story, as well as adding the poetry that appears before, after, and in the middle of chapters. They renamed the Sanguo Tong Shu Yan Yi to simply Sanguo Yanyi, which became known as the Mao edition. The C.H Brewitt-Taylor English translation simply uses the Sanguo Yanyi, and includes nothing else, while the Moss Roberts English translation also includes notes that Pei Songzhi added, which gives a lot more historical insight to the political realities of the time.
