Talk:Crossbow/Archive 3

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: 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 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.


 * 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)

Legal issues -an own article
I suggest to make the legal issues an own article in cooperation with the 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)

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)

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)

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)

New layout suggestion

 * 1) Types of crossbows
 * 2) Acceleration system
 * 3) Type of weapon
 * 4) Crossbow projectiles
 * 5) Crossbow accessories
 * 6) History of use
 * 7) First evidence
 * 8) Historic use in Europe
 * 9) Historic use in Africa
 * 10) Historic use in the Americas
 * 11) Historic use in Asia
 * 12) Historic use in the Islamic world
 * 13) Use of crossbows today
 * 14) Legal issues (modern and ancient)
 * 15) See also
 * 16) Notes
 * 17) References
 * 18) 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)

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)

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 have adopted this weapon from other African tribes. Wandalstouring 12:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. 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)

Ballisates are not crossbows
Removed this section "The smaller sniper version was often called Scorpio. 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. "

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)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Duncan Campbell, p%8" :
 * Duncan Campbell: Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363, Osprey Publishing, Oxford 2003, ISBN 1841766348, p.8
 * Duncan Campbell: Greek and Roman Artillery 399 BC-AD 363, Osprey Publishing, Oxford 2003, ISBN 1841766348, p.8ff.

Ancient Greek Crossbow problems
Diodorus Siculus did not refer at 14,42,1 (399/98 bce) that the crossbow was developed, but that artillery (katepeltikon) was developed! Diodorus use the same word for catapults/artillery throughout his works and make no difference at all. Marsdens assumptions, that Diodorus meant the crossbow discribed by Hero of Alexandria in his work on artillery, has been already proven wrong on philological and historical reasons. Also that Hero used some lost work by Ctesibius of Alexandria (his work did not survive, only three fragments of it). In this point (see article crossbow), Rihll: The catapult, a history, Yardley 2007 and even Duncan Campbell (see article) are outdated, because they all used Marsden opinion without a detailed critic on Marsdens weak points. Schellenberg is highly critical on the crossbow theses and that Hero used Ctesibius, who must have used than an earlier unnamed source on the gastraphetes. Which nobody could prove, because they are now longer in existence. Citing Marsdens with his clear lack of source criticism weekens all arguments on this point. Older opinions, should not regarded as communis opino, because they are the most cited. Recent scientific research on this point should be considered. Pogonatos2 (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a dispute between scholars. We can not judge right or wrong, only fringe or not, depending on the amount of sources using one definition. I know of the problem that not every catapult is a crossbow. Let's write a reworded section here with as many sources as possible to show that the crossbow=catapult opinion is a fringe opinion.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian Special Forces
Indian special forces now uses less cumbersome silenced pistols according to the reference site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.101.232 (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

merge with crossbows
I disagree with merging this arbalist (crossbowman) with the crossbow article. It has lots of potential for expansion. For example training of becoming an arbalist could be an important topic of that page. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Active military usage
Berean Hunter made two edits I'd like to comment on. Firstly several photograph links were removed, links which proved that the Chinese use crossbows across the military board (traffic, regular army and special forces). The youtube news report link which remained, although fundamental, does not proove that they are used by either traffic police or special forces, but only regular army. Therefore I have reverted the edit and included the references again. Secondly the new format subheader of "20th Century Military Usage" was removed, with the Indian Marcos and Montagnard cases being included in " Active military usage". May I remind Berean Hunter that the information states that they are no longer in use by Marcos and also that the Vietnam war has ended. Therefore these sections must be separated. This encourages research towards both ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haudcivitas (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-biased Opinion
As a non-biased (ie no allegiance to any of the previous authors of this article) person, I would like to say a number of things:


 * I feel that the article in it's current state is informative and well written. I think that it gives background information, more detailed information for the interested reader and links for further information: in my opinion, everything a wikipedia article should do.


 * There are possibly too many pictures of bow variants in the article - these could be quite confusing for someone who is researching this subject. Perhaps it would be better to have fewer pictures of variants and links to pictures in the reference section?


 * Finally, may I point out that everyone and no-one owns a wikipedia article. We can make suggestions and amendments - that is the whole point of wikipedia - but at the end of the day this is not the place to get emotional about changes.  If you truly don't like the way wikipedia works (and this is not directed to anyone specific, so I hope not to get rude comments made), then don't be involved in it.

I hope that my humble opinion is of some worth and that the users of wikipedia can benefit from this good article. --KizzyB (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific on the different version of the modern military and paramilitary use. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Photos are overkill for WP:POINT
The large number of photos are overkill when the point is not in dispute..secondly, my removal is not vandalism..you need to accept cleanup on your contributions. Also, separate sentences do not a paragraph make. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This point taken in, I suggest we include the police traffic picture and the special forces photos only. That means three links, two photos. Acceptable? Your removing the "20th Century military usage" subheader without a logical reason provided here is indeed vandalism. Explain your logic please. And what does "separate sentences do not a paragraph make" mean exactly? I hope this is not a reference to the subheader point. --HaudCivitas (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the two or three refs should be acceptable..yes. Actually, I meant to form a single section subheader that is Military usage which can grow until it is logical in size to split into two sections. Single sentences do not form paragraphs..we need to do that, yes? Nothing about my edits were vandalism..agreed? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, you need to clean up your ref links..go back and see how I changed a couple of them (which you've now undone). <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned them up for you... <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you add captions to the images. I have no idea what the many green men should show, also the third photo shows a policeman, not a soldier. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to make sense to change to police and military as the policeman you see Wandalstouring is a traffic police man in a particular province where handguns are banned even in State hands. However the police are military in China, perhaps you are unaware. Now I see you have edited out active, given that in your view "some" sources are dated. Let me assure you they are active. The sources are active. Crossbows are active in military use, I have proved that and you have not proved otherwise. Febuary 15 2008, the Serbian example, is very recent and implies activity. CIGS is an ongoing training programme and we have a 1st hand perspective of it dating to late 2004. The Chinese news report is dated december 2007. These are recent and thus active examples. Neither Marcos continue to use crossbows, nor is the Vietnam war still going. They are not active examples but could still be described as "modern" and less befitting to the History section therefore. Hence they are modern historic and require another subheader. Of course including the Vietnam war alongside examples from this very century, the last decade, the last year and present year would not make sense. To your other point about captions I will do this later when I return unless you wish to follow the links in the sources of this article to discover yourself just what they show.. although most would be able to decipher the uniform, insignia and ethnicity of these "green men" - which cover some of the content's examples in America, Europe and Asia.
 * It seems Berean Hunter also reasons with the edit by one sentence not making a paragraph also. Two points in regard to this; 1) There are in fact two sentences, now with the Vietnam example. 2) Paragraphs of the essay are not subheaded content on wiki or elsewhere digitally. The new "paragraph" is because it is a separate issue (as I have reasoned above with regard to contempory and modern historic. Finally I do not need telling that I should be open to contri changes. As much as I appreciate internet folk putting a comma here or there, or otherwise formatting links etc, I am a contributor who provides actual content.  --HaudCivitas (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Serbia was several years ago. As long as you don't show their use in an ongoing war you have proven nothing.
 * Serbia is as dated as the Indian commandos and the Vietnam war. It doesn't mean that it isn't possibly still in use, the source simply doesn't say so and the layout gets really butched up by a stub about the 20th century usage. So by wikipedia guidelines alone you have to avoid that nuisance. The examples pretty well show that it's possible to fight with crossbows in modern wars. That's the essence.
 * I know that China has lots of paramilitary forces, not soldiers, but more military than the ordinary policeman. I wouldn't mind rephrasing it to "modern usage by military and paramilitary forces". Wandalstouring (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Serbia was several years ago". Correct, the conflict was. However there is a link showing the Serbian defence minister using a crossbow alongside spec ops in Feb 2008. That is this year. So I have proved it, they are in ACTIVE MILITARY USE. Conflict is irrelevant. The CIGS training programme is ongoing also. Nothing has changed there. You have totally ignored these points and as such this is vandalism on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haudcivitas (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sign your comments using ~ . I don't know whether the photo shows Serbians at all and when it was taken. For this reason it is challenged with a fact template and will be removed from the article if you don't provide sources for the image caption. Please read WP:Summary because this article isn't going to present the stance of all military, paramiliatry and police forces towards crossbows. 93.134.47.209 (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "I don't know whether the photo shows Serbians at all and when it was taken." Check the links perhaps? You need to slow down your ego and check what evidence is actually being presented. The link is; http://www.daylife.com/photo/04ZU4Zr0xS4IA. Day Life is a MAJOR news network. So it IS sourced. Read the lengthy caption;

''
 * 9 months ago: Serbian Minister of Defence Dragan Sutanovac (3R) tries a crossbow during a public exercise of the Serbian army's Special Forces in Nis, 200km south of capital Belgrade, on February 15, 2008. A celebration, the Day of the Serbian Armed Forces titled �Sretenje 08�, was held at the barracks in Nis today. Kosovo began its long-awaited final countdown to statehood today, with Prime Minister Hashim Thaci poised to confirm next 17 February as the day it will declare independence from Serbia. It will do so with strong support from the major EU powers and the United States, and equally vigorous opposition from Serbia and Russia, which have vowed never to recognize it.


 * Furthermore, these men are in Serbian military uniform. Google them. It is also THE Serbian defence minister!!! It's him, simple, it's his face. This said I will keep the pictures out and those users of wikipedia who actually check sources will see the image with the content provided (plus the date of febuary 8th which I have quoted in the body.) You are making nonsense edits, such as; "They're competing with suppressed handguns as silent killers, leading to militaries chosing one or the other". Read that. It does not make any sense and is extremely lacking in good understanding of our fine language. And your replace summary continuously CUTS OUT the very important Guardian article which refers to "Modern Military usage". Why are you cutting out a source? It tells us how crossbows are seen in terms of military import/export as well as their use. Your summary is also highly vague, why be vague about this? We have specifics, specifics that you are editing out for no logical reason and then ironically attempting to accuse me of presenting the stance all militaries use crossbows? Finally, I have signed all my comments, can you not see that? Stop making lame private message threats at me from your armchair and acccept the sources are accurate and the forces which use crossbows well defined. You need to back down as you are proving obsessive and disruptive. --HaudCivitas (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

<== If anyone is disruptive and rude here it is you Haudcivitas. Your language looks like it is designed to try to bait someone in...but you really aren't that good at it. The rules of WP:BRD state that you take this to the talk page and discuss there and you don't edit controversially in the meantime. You will have to gain consensus here on the talk page before you attempt to add them to the article. If you insist on your disruptive behavior and language (you have foolishly bantered the terms "troll" and "vandalism" as accusations) then we can carry this on over to WP:ANI and run it up the flagpole and see how you fare. Your talk page history identifies you as a troublemaker (removing all those warnings didn't help you..it shows us what you really are). Neither Wandalstouring nor I are vandals or trolls and our talk page history and contribs show it...you, on the other hand, don't look so good in those categories. Tone down the language and focus on the edits and not the editors. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 13:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reply, yet I see the same edits. This time the jumbled up vague summary has been changed to "They are competing against", from "They're competing". This sentence is not going to make sense, with little changes. It needs a total overhaul as it still made no sense. Actually the closest you could get to correctness would be "Their use as silent weapons makes for competition against silent firearms". But I would still edit such nonsense out because that is sourced nowhere. Nowhere does it say crossbows are "competing" against silent firearms. So, please stop editing in this Germanic sounding infantile sentence, at the very least. --HaudCivitas (talk) 11:54, 9 December

2008 (UTC)


 * "The rules of WP:BRD state that you take this to the talk page and discuss there". I have been doing that. And on each accusation I have given a logical supported response which have been ignored. I am using the talk page and any operator of wiki who has the power to ban will see that. They will also see exactly how lacking in specific information Wandel's edit is. It doesn't even make sense moreover. I am truly confident that will be noticed. Now you are trying to paint me as a trouble maker. I started two wiki pages and provided the majority of their content. I've brought a lot of content to this page in fact - contact that you these "editors" are just mishmashing and cutting up. Moreover I have indeed been accepting some edits, such as the wording of several phrases, not using pictures in the body and the titles used. I am not being totally antagonistic, as are you two - two guys who literally obsess over certain pages. You do not own this page. Neither does Wandel. Talk has been used and my points both evaded and ignored. Call up your admins, they will see for themselves and I know which way reason will sway. You say consensus must be reached as if this subsection even existed before I arrived. You guys, with all your persistant editing of this page didn't do the research beforehand that I have and knew about anyhow. The modern military section, in terms of its sources provided, is more my intellectual property or "work" than yours. If you want to speak about consensus I have a say in it too. Your fix to that has been to stop editing my body and now replacing it with a confused ramble. The confused misleading ramble can not stay. You may edit the body of my precise and succint information as much as you like and as before I will allow those sensible parts. Cutting out most the information and making misleading comments will not be allowed. Now unless my above points are responded to, those points of Wandel's which I took the time to respond to (i.e. the evidence of active serbian use, to refute which would require that the Serbian defence minister is infact a clone), as well as my below examination of Wandel's edit, then I shall continue. I expect short succint answers here, not ridiculous presumptions about my intentions designed like most obsessive types to reduce credibility (yes, I will admit that in the content I have provided there have been a few of your type moan about it.) But I won't roll over on this one. I have provided content both on the main page and detailed responses here. I have more to come and I expect the maturity that they be respected.
 * Let us examine this Berean Hunter refined model of Wandel's;
 * The crossbow is still used in our times by various militaries[27][28][29][30], tribal forces[31] and in China even by the police forces.[32] While their worldwide distribution is not restricted by regulations on arms they serve as silent killers and for their psychological effect[33], even reportedly using poisoned projectiles.[34] Nowadays, crossbows are used for ambush and anti-sniper[35] operations or in conjunction with ropes to establish zip-lines in difficult terrain.[36] They are competing with suppressed handguns as silent killers, leading to militaries choosing one or the other.[37]


 * 1) "In our times" just frankly sounds immature. I can not agree to that edit.
 * 2) "even" has been used twice, one sentence after another. Again, childlike writing. There is nothing exceptional here meriting its use "even" once.
 * 3) There is nothing "reportedly" about cyanide (why you have generalised to say poison now is beyond me) being used on bolts. We have a link of the Indian Navy Marine's official website. That is truly officialdom and henceforth the word "reportedly" is typical of editor buffing. Buffing cuts out real content, even if it makes you feel your importance in the provision of the actual content of the page is augmented, and I won't allow it.
 * 4) Where is the link about tribal forces? Montgnard yes, although that is one tribe. One. And they are not necessarily doing it still (this is why I had originally pointed out a 20th century section would make sense). They did it during the Vietnam war, this we know. But you have included it, "in our times". You see, I wouldn't have made that error Berean Hunter, because I was the one who sourced the Montngard (you didn't even know beforehand.) This is why editors need to sit back and have a coffee, read the facts, before trying to make some argument based on wording. You will only belittle yourself in the process otherwise. You should at the least respect far more those who provide the content which you misrepresent and make incorrect statements about.
 * 5) "Chinese police forces". Actually there is only evidence of the Chinese police using crossbows in one province, the province of Chongqing - this information is available with the photograph in the source (http://www.chinacartimes.com/2007/09/27/i-fought-the-law-and-not-suprisingly-they-won/) The PLA and spec ops use them more than the police, so why a direct reference to the police is made I am unsure. Again, we need to show specific information here, not misleading stuff.
 * 6) "Nowadays" crossbows are not necessarily "used for ambush and anti-sniper". You are paraphrasing the Guardian there, a 1999 article talking about the earlier passed Serbian conflict. Funny how you two get all muddled up in your accusations.
 * 7) "Competing with suppressed handguns" is not a valid sentence, nor sourced. There is no competition. They have specific uses within certain units which quite evidently include suppressed handguns, automatic weapons and sniper rifles. They compliment, rather than compete.

--HaudCivitas (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User Wandelstouring has since made two edits to the discussion page thusfar, ignoring everything put at him. His edit below was declared as "clarifying questions" - when in fact it ignores every single question and point put to him (and his undo partner Berean Hunter). Instead, user Wandelstouring has focused on peripheral argumentative points. To "clarify" the questions (points rather, I have asked you little) one must only read above. And indeed, people have and will. The writing is right there, on the wall. The follow through by Wandel has been thin, to say the least. --HaudCivitas (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Update; User Berean Hunter has again made lude accusations of making edits without discussion, in the diverter subsection below. This is totally contradictory, given his complete failure to respond to my above points. You have attempted to edit my body Berean hunter, and as above exemplified you were wrong on just about every count (not hard, when you REMOVE details.) --HaudCivitas (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

edit war

 * You accuse two editors of being unable to understand English texts?
 * You claim possession of this very section of the article?
 * You accuse two editors of trolling and vandalism? Wandalstouring (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not repeat what I have written. You have attempted to sidestep every single point I have proved you incorrect upon, by this sudden divert to the personal side of this dispute. I do not seek that. I seek responses to the above points about the content and edits, every single one must be logically proved false or you are doing nothing but undoing my edits, calling for discussion and then slamming the book when I speak. That is bullying at best. What you want is responses to the above points, to draw attention from the sustained argument I have made above. Nobody will fall for that. The English has been poor. I have not claimed possession to anything. And yes, this is weak immature vandalism. --HaudCivitas (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After your initial accusation of vandalism, Haudcivitas, I had intentionally stayed away from your content edits and resigned myself to minor edits such as wikilinks, spelling, format..just wikignoming the non-controversial stuff. You were reverted because although you are using the talk page, you are edit warring in article space. Discussion isn't something where you say something and then immediately go and change the article to the way you see fit. There should be proposals and discussion when there is disagreement. In truth there needs to be more editors involved to get further input on the content of the article. You were previously warned about edit warring here and yet you insist on continuing. Could we agree to discuss here and try to get further comments from other editors without reverting the article and edit warring? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I point you to the above section Berean Hunter, wherein lies much discussion and logical argument; evaded throughout by yourself. Now I do not see why we should revert to Wandel's version, whilst we decide upon this, given that 1) I put the information there first (neither of you took the time to discuss this section, before making massive changes to the body). 2) Wandel's information and your refined version both have multiple errors and leave a wiki user less informed, misinformed and wondering about their comprehension of the English language. I hope that we can rise above damaged wiki pride here, I for one apologise for using terminology which may have offended you. I assume that of course you are both avid crossbow owners like myself and we should find common ground at least in that areana. Yet if the editing continues, I will ask again and again that you refer to my above argument. I have given a lot of time to justify the content I have brought here and that has so far been ignored, based upon hurt feelings for both of you from my pointing out initially that those "green men" were wearing Serbian, Chinese, Greek and other official uniform and that the Vietnam War had passed. Let's move on from that. --HaudCivitas (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your 1) the article has been in the last state that you placed it in here for the last few hours so we haven't reverted to Wandal's version, it is on your's. The response to your 2) Since you think so, that is why it is best for us to wait for further comments from other editors and not try to heighten any conflict here. Demanding answers simply doesn't work. I suggest we take afternoon tea or coffee and give time for others to catch up. I'm not particularly concerned about the content and open for ideas but the edit warring, demands and insinuations need to stop..it is poisonous to the editing environment. Thank you for the apology that certainly helps and is accepted. I'm sure we can all work something out...ah, I hear the kettle. Enjoy your tea, gentlemen. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm especially concerned that sourced material was deleted in this process. That's absolutely forbidden if you don't summarize the content. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "To answer your 1) the article has been in the last state that you placed it in here for the last few hours so we haven't reverted to Wandal's version, it is on your's." I was referring to your and his edits over yesterday and early today, not anything in the past few hours. I thought that was clear, in the above content, given that I was quoting such comments and edits? It is unfair to suggest it is on "your's" - as it is a refined version of mine in fact, refined through edits I had no problem with. Now for Wandel; "I'm especially concerned that sourced material was deleted in this process. That's absolutely forbidden if you don't summarize the content." Please do explain what you mean. Along the way we have lost pictures, that was a shame. With the current version we have all the sourced information and demonstrate only what we know. With your version we lost the truth. I do not appreciate your anti-ing up once again.
 * As for the next step I would like to suggest we get much more detailed on the Hunting section of Modern use. I have already extended some examples of where they can and can not be used. I am considering making a big table, which I will present here and which when you have both agreed upon we would use in that section. Thoughts? --HaudCivitas (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You deleted all material on the Indian marines. That's not acceptable.
 * You should read Laws on crossbows before modifying the hunting section. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted all material on the Indian marines? Actually it was lost temporarily during the edit war, because it had been under the 20th century header. Yet, I did add it in again here; (cur) (last) 23:30, 8 December 2008 Haudcivitas (Talk | contribs) (30,495 bytes) (reincluding indian example) (undo). That's yesterday, for reference. There was henceforth nothing unacceptable and certainly not "forbidden" by my behaviour. I assume you do apply wiki rules to yourself? You repeatedly deleted multiple informations, replacing them with the jargon I have quoted in the above section of this discussion page and to which you continue to turn tail. Furthermore I am aware of the Laws on crossbows page. What is your point? We have a modern use and hunting section here on this page. We should fill it. I await the response. --HaudCivitas (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked yestrady and this section wasn't present, so I complained. It is not advised by wikipedia to create section stubs, so I strongly argue for merging the first decade of the 21th century with the 20th century section.
 * If you read the whole crossbow article and the branched off articles you'll eventually realize that all legal issues of hunting are being discussed in laws on crossbows. However, if you really want to explain the hunting section tell the reader how hunting with the crossbow works. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction rewritten
I've just expanded and added references to the introduction. I've tried to avoid questionable sources discussed above. This is a summary of what's been done:


 * Added a sentence to discuss the nomenclature since discussions above referred to the confusion between crossbows and ballistas.


 * Made it clear that most sources trace the origin of the apparition of crossbows to ancient China but kept some balance (to reflect other points raised in the talk page) and left "while some others believe types of crossbow were also developped separately in the Mediterranean." However, someone needs to find some sources to this claim as I couldn't find any.

That said, the article's History of crossbows introduction is still very weak and undicided in terms of the origins of the crossbow. I did not want to touch it for the time being until we discuss it here. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is a bridge between the traditional and prinicipal usage of the weapon in the military and its main modern usage in sports and hunting.


 * There have been sources used for the Chinese texts giving 500-300 BC for both the followers of Mozi and Sun Tzu. I'm not sure you're new source has taken all due considerations dating Sun Tzu's work to that exact date. It was rather customary in China that old works were "improved" when copying them and thus you often can't date Chinese texts for sure. However, good work. Wandalstouring (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source which has been used though I am ok with . --  FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There's another issue I don't understand "most historical sources trace its origin to East Asia -mainly China-". The alternatives in East Asia being discussed didn't have a writting system back then, so for sure it can only be China with written records. Furthermore, from the sources used it's not clear that they say it was invented in ancient China or in what today is China and from the conquered parts there was a population movement south. We should clarify that archaeological evidence and historic sources are from ancient China, but linguistics makes is less like the place of origin. Furthermore the oldest archaeological and written evidence from ancient China is roughly contemporary with the dates estimated for ancient Greece, somehow we should reflect this debatte from the first evidence section. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We can get rid of 'historical' and would be fine with it.


 * We should clarify that archaeological evidence and historic sources are from ancient China, but linguistics makes is less like the place of origin. I don't believe that it is part of our work per WP:OR unless there are academic works out there discussing that (I mean discussing the 'fact' that the crossbow being invented by the Chinese is disputed because archeological works say otherwise). -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  20:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree we should get rid of the historical sources. Needham does point out the linguistics and is pretty much accepted as the basic work for Chinese technology. It had its origin in East Asia or what today is modern China and ancient Greece independently and the evidence is roughly dating it back to the same time. That's the essence of the first evidence section and is well backed up by scientific sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

anti sniper operations
We have this statement that crossbows are used for anti sniper operations. I don't understand how you counter a sniperrifle with such a cumbersome range and a former officer editing here share's my concerns. I suggest to provide more confirmation for this statement and how it tactically works or to distance ourselves from this statement and say explicitly that it's someone's statement and not present it as a widely accepted fact. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly the statement reads "counter-sniper", not anti-sniper, - which is what I have changed the article to say. Secondly it is not important that you personally do not understand how sniper rifle's are countered by a "cumbersome range". It is not important for me to understand it, or this imaginary officer friend who has no wiki account and whose credibility counts as nil. It is the opinion of the an employee of Jane's Defence[], as reported by the credible newspaper The Guardian[], which is important.

--HaudCivitas (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't verify it's from Jane's Defence and the Guardian is certainly no authority on military matters. This statement is simply hard to believe and I may cast scepticism because of the effective range of each weapon and that the lack of noise when firing a crossbow doesn't seem to help much. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A few points.. You have edited the article, by writing "according to the article" at a point which suggests that it is the Guardian which has discovered and asserted that Serbia used crossbows against the KLA. Incorrect. It was a Whitehall investigation which discovered and asserted this. The quote reads "Whitehall has launched an investigation into reports that British-manufactured crossbows have been used by Serb soldiers against the Kosovo Liberation Army." Next point is, just what do you mean by you can't verify it's from Jane's Defence? It's an interview with Paul Beaver []. He works for them, google it. Are you suggesting the Guardian posted a false pretend interview with an employee of Jane's Defence? And thirdly, your own views on the crossbows abilities or lack thereof are not relevant to the kind of encyclopedia that wiki is.

--HaudCivitas (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by my point. You provided no source for the counter sniper use other than the Guardian. Please say where the heck in Jane's Defence such a questionable statement was published and please point me to where I can read the Whitehall investigation you claim to quote. Please remember, photos of people aren't sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bowgun"?
Where does the term "Bowgun" come from? I have heard it used a few times, I think mostly in translated Japanese media (Battle Royale most notably), and have always been baffled by why the term crossbow wasn't used. I tried looking up bowgun here on wikipedia to see if the term referred to a distinct weapon, but was redirected here. There is no mention of "bowgun" in the article, so I am left puzzled as to the origin of this term. If anyone knows where and why it is used, I'd be much obliged. Darien Shields (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Take a crossbow with a string that has a poach in the middle between two strings coming out of the single crossbow string and you have a potential bowgun(the trick is about adapting this to the trigger mechanism). All you need now, is not to shoot bolts or arrows, but lead bullets, stones or dried clay. There's a theory that it appears in China during the warring states period in warfare, however this is extremely difficult to prove. In Europe crossbows with such a modified string were used for hunting. These crossbows killed with their kinetic energy (up to that of a modern pistol, usually lower). This could be used as an argument, because the crossbows of people neighbouring the Chinese are usually very light and accurate weapons using poisoned darts. Using poison is dangerous for the hunter (a Byzantine emperor died because of injuring himself with his arrow), so cheap kinetic projectiles might have been an early solution for small game. In warfare it's good causing (even deadly) trauma against flexible unpadded armour (for example the popular buff coat, also used by Chinese soldiers earlier, note it doesn't kill, but hurts like hell or any bulletproof vest) or no armour.Wandalstouring (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I propose to clean up again. The history section here has been significantly expanded and restructured, although it should only be a summary of the article history of the crossbow because this content makes the article unwiedly. The crossbow article has a clear technical focus and I suggest to strengthen that. Another issue is the flood of images. There's hardly an article on wikipedia with more images per text. I think we should move part off into galeries or sub articles for example about medieval European crossbowmen. Opinions? Wandalstouring (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With so many images in the article, we can afford to be picky. Why not get rid of the poor quality ones? The model in the ancient China section is abysmal; it’s low quality, out of focus, poorly lit, and doesn’t even have good detail on the crossbow. The relief of the wheel- and elephant-mounted crossbows is too small. Either it needs to be a lot larger so the detail can be seen or it should be got rid of. The whale image isn’t great; it makes a change from the rest of the article, but it’s of a crossbow bolt rather than a crossbow itself, so I’m dubious as to whether it should be included. In the variants section, I’d recommend removing one of the images of the modern crossbow; either will do, but both is excessive. Galleries are usually discouraged, but I can see the purpose of the two used here. And as far as images go, last but not least is the wooden figure holding a crossbow; were it not 15th century I’d remove it myself but some may think it is of historical value. In my opinion, it’s poor and two lead images (the Da Vinci and the modern crossbow) seems sufficient.
 * As for the rest of the article, it suffers from some problems with tone and there may be some issues with sourcing. Reference #41 is to a forum thread, which doesn’t count as a reliable source. Reference #42 probably isn’t much better and they need to be replaced. There’s a similar problem with #50; photographs are primary sources and shouldn’t be used. So there’s an image of a Spanish Green Beret holding a crossbow; does that mean the Green Berets actually use the weapon or perhaps it was a demonstration? A proper source needs to be found. Legal issues is an odd section: with phrases like “it is easy to see why the Church might discourage it”, it sounds like an excerpt from an essay. It could be stripped back to one sentence and put elsewhere in the article. The info bout modern legal issues should be mentioned in the modern use section and should focus on more than just the US. I’d recommend looking at some of the unreferenced material carefully. For example: “Moreover, crossbows could be kept cocked and ready to shoot for some time with little effort, allowing crossbowmen to aim better”. I’d disagree with that last part; it gave a crossbowman longer to aim than an archer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were “better” (“better” is a vague term but I assume better means more accurate; it could be argued that speed of release with a decent degree of accuracy made the longbow “better” so it‘s a good idea to be specific). So yes, an attempt at cleanup is a very good idea. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quality is one issue. Cultural bias another. I can possibly obtain better versions of the Asian crossbow versions. The comparison longbow vs. crossbow is very much under the English bias that longbows are "better". A few countries in Europe adopted that weapon, others adopted the crossbow. We have this discussion bow vs. crossbow also in Asia, so I suggest to put it on a more than the English wars footing. However, I would appreciate help researching that issue. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My objection to the comparison between bow and crossbow was that it was unsourced and obviously subjective. Sourced comparison may be useful, but assertions that one was "better" than the other with reference to just one factor is not. I just used longbow as an example because it's something I'm a little more familiar with than normal bows, although still to no great extent (the only article I've read relating to the subject was on embrasures and how practical they were). Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

da Vinci sketch at head
I don’t agree with the da Vinci sketch being used here. I mean, it’s neat and all, but it’s not a crossbow. Look closely and you’ll see a small man and wagon wheels. The sketch seems to be of a large ballista-like invention. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sry, please look up what a ballista is. This is a crossbow, no matter how large. If you have better suggestions for a header picture I'm all ears. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides the sketch caption is wrong, saying the author is Pablo Picasso, which is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.54.34 (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of crossbow bolt


Is that thing actually a crossbow bolt? Although I am admittedly not an expert, that doesn't look like any crossbow bolt I've ever seen. It's certainly not representative of the bolts in common use. If no one objects, I'll remove it. &mdash;Ryan (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is in fact a modern crossbow bolt used in target competition. (One variation) Spykey808 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Invented in America
To make this article consistent with most others about devices or processes, should there not be a claim in the History section that crossbows were invented by an American? Failing this perhaps there should be a large section entitled "American Crossbows". 86.138.14.83 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The "What is a Catapult?" issue
A KATA-pult or catapult most likely refers to the Greek word katos, "from underneath". The word appears to have undergone latinization and this word incorrectly has a letter C instead of a K for 'Kappa' (since their is no C in Greek).

Therefore the Gastraphetes does not even resemble a "catapult". There are many incorrect, anti-Hellenic "historians" that promote theories based on almost no fact, in an attempt to degrade and distort Greek history. They are not credible and it is difficult at times to detect this kind of intellectual fraud. When a book is published and can be cited, somehow this creates legitimacy of the critical revisionalism of long standing history. We have to be aware of these people, they are types that gave rise to pseudo-history such as "Aryan-ism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.147.153 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Chinese section?
There's only Europe; typical, trying to steal others' achievements just like the Europeans saying they invented paper and gunpowder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:130:116:100:4873:F702:F234:65B8 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ballestrino
can we mention the ballestrino in the pistol crossbow section ? See here 109.133.78.91 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Stonebow
I understand that the man in this portrait is holding a stonebow for fowling. Perhaps there is a way to incorporate the picture into this article? I am far from an expert on crossbows. - PKM (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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)


 * Always better to say what you know; not what you don't. The part that says: "impossible to answer" is totally unnecessary. Landroo (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

Dubious identification of crossbows as arcuballistae
As the Roman section notes, arcuballista and manuballista may refer to light weapons with torsion coils, like the cheiroballistra, instead of to crossbows. Also, there is controversy about whether its arms swung outward or inward. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But the Greek section, contradicting the Roman section simply identifies the arcuballista with the crossbow, and several illustrations describe crossbows as arcuballistae or bow-arcuballistae, and these ignore the uncertainty. To describe them as crossbows would be straightforward. To describe them as arcuballistae is to ignore the uncertainty, and ignore the cultural specificity of the latter term. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this helps, but according to "The Medieval City Under Siege" (eds. Ivy A. Corfis and Michael Wolfe, 1993):


 * "What can be clarified is the terminology Vegetius uses to refer to artillery. The onager is his sole stone-projector, a one-armed sling machine with a massive torsion spring mounted horizontally on a heavy base. Of the four bolt-projectors, the ballista is a large base-mounted, two-armed, metal-framed torsion catapult. The carroballista is a catapult mounted on a specially designed cart pulled by a team of horses or mules. It was clearly a two-armed, metal-framed torsion machine when it first appeared. The manuballista or scorpion is a handheld bolt-projector used only by infantry. It was clearly a two-armed, metal-framed torsion machine when it was introduced. The arcuballista is a handheld crossbow which could be utilized by mounted infantry and foot soldiers alike." 216.67.37.162 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Arcuballista takes on a totally different meaning in the Middle Ages, just like ballista is the root word for crossbow in most European languages.194.95.59.132 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"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 focus 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)
 * There is no source on Tell with a longbow. You confuse that with Robin Hood.194.95.59.132 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Not at all. People in the Middle Ages didn't read Roman and Greek classics in much circulation and used old words however they felt. For this reason in most languages ballista is the root word for crossbow, showing that at some point of time it was one and the same in vernacular, a bolt shooter, irrespective of the exact spring mechanism. You have to be careful with overinterpreting the resources. 194.95.59.132 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

The exhibit of the Qin Emperor's terra cotta army currently moving through the US features individual crossbow components (standardized, at that) found within the tomb. That suggests to me - though I am only a PhD student in a non-historical field who is the child of a PhD Historian - that the introduction of the crossbow occurred before the currently accepted date. But then, I'm not as familiar with your epistemological and methodological concerns. However, given that the exhibit first passed through the British Museum, and then into the High in Atlanta, and is now appearing in DC, it must have passed through the hands of trained historians who could verify the provenance of said artifacts. I would imagine that the curators of the British Museum have a certain authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.192.86 (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, why there is so much fuss about invented first that over time quoted texts get mispresented. Needham says, he can not tell, whether the Chinese or their neighbours have older claims to the crossbow. Not all of these neighbours became part of China. So far it states the first reliable claims in China and the kind of first claims appearing in the Mediterranean. There is no claim to anyone having invented it, because there is no clear source on the invention. 194.95.59.132 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Crossbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715221520/http://www.saa-intl.com/products/crossbow.html to http://www.saa-intl.com/products/crossbow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Crossbow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305184249/http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/Peruffaa04/images/b2aBriFFEE2_EP_jpg.jpg to http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/Peruffaa04/images/b2aBriFFEE2_EP_jpg.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112045026/http://www.daylife.com/photo/04ZU4Zr0xS4IA to http://www.daylife.com/photo/04ZU4Zr0xS4IA
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025075700/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Marines.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Marines.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Very confused by projectiles section
It is stated that all projectiles used in a crossbow are called bolts. I'm not sure about that, but I'm fine with it if it can be referenced by an authoritative source, which it is not currently. The statements that confuse me especially as a crossbow owner are "bolts do not have a fletching". It is self evident that the type of bolts (if that is the correct terminology) used in the vast majority of modern crossbows are fletched. For example, the pictures of the modern recurve and modern compound crossbows in the article clearly show fletched bolts, which look like shorter versions of conventional fletched arrows. On any archery or hunting supply store you care to look at Example, you will find crossbow bolts for sale, and they do not look anything like the bolt featured in the picture used in the article.

Image of bolt used in article

They look like conventional aluminium or carbon arrows with fletching, and fitted with either a moon nock or flat nock, and usually point inserts for fitting a broad head or field point. Furthermore, the statement "the physics of how a bolt finds its target are different from that of an arrow used in a vertical bow" seems to me to be questionable, and the only reference is to an article that no longer exists. It seems there must be at least two very different types of "bolts" in current use - the "arrow type" ones that are very commonly available, and the specialised metal ones without fletching referenced here in the article, which I've never seen in use personally. 78.150.180.12 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I totally agree both about the fletching and the physics. Once they leave contact with the weapon, arrows and fletched bolts fly to their targets in the same way. This is wrong info and ought to be corrected. I'm not familiar enough with the unfletched bolts to appropriately comment on them, or to comment on how they should be addressed in the article.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Chinese European crossbow triggers.png
 * Connected double bed crossbow.jpg

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Connected double bed crossbow wbz.jpg (discussion)
 * Repeating crossbow WBZ.jpg (discussion)

automatic v repeating crossbow
; self-cocking crossbow, automatic crossbow, repeating crossbow is version of the automatic crossbow which was invented in China, semi-automatic crossbow 89.201.185.194 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Roman section
It currently says:
 * The idea that the arcuballista was a crossbow is based on the fact that Vegetius refers to it and the manuballista, which was torsion powered, separately. Therefore, if the arcuballista was not like the manuballista, it may have been a crossbow. The etymology is not clear and their definitions obscure.

I think this gets the point the wrong way around somewhat. For those who take Vegetius's use of ‘vel’ to imply a distinction, it doesn't mean that arcuballistae must have been something other than manuballistae, so most probably a crossbow, but rather that arcuballistae, which we know were crossbows in later times, where already distinct from manuballistae in Roman times and hence already crossbows even back then, and that therefore manuballistae must have been the miniature ballistae, torsion-powered weapons, for which we have archaeological evidence.

The etymologies aren't unclear at all and seem to support this view, but on the other hand their definitions aren't obscure, they're non-existent. And you'd have to trust that Vegetius really did mean to make the distinction.

This section may need a bit of a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Two-bow crossbow wjzy.jpg