> For over a century the longbow reigned as undisputed king of medieval European missile weapons. Yet only England used the longbow as a mainstay in its military arsenal; France and Scotland clung to the technologically inferior cross-
bow.
> England alone, for a 150-year window in late medieval Europe, was politically stable enough to render the longbow its rulers’ optimal technology choice. In contrast, in France and Scotland political instability prevailed, rendering the crossbow the optimal technology choice for rulers in these nations.
Yes, I read those, but I still don't see the assumption made.
The first more general sentence does not imply that the all the countries mentioned in the second make up the entirety of Europe.
It makes sense that the author would make a specific comparison with the countries involved in the war, rather than doing so for all the countries in medieval Europe.
Like the difference between crossbows and longbows, they were superior in some ways and inferior in others.
Since they were composite, they were dependent on glue and cord holding them together; they were somewhat more susceptible to weather. They were also more expensive to produce. However, as recurves they had better power with less stacking (force required to hold them at a full draw), and they were also shorter so could be used from horseback, a huge advantage for a nomadic people on the steppes.
Your point is well taken, however, that the paper is really only comparing a very limited portion of Europe over a fairly limited amount of time. It's an interesting analysis, but I don't think it has enough data or broad enough application to make it definitive.
> England alone, for a 150-year window in late medieval Europe, was politically stable enough to render the longbow its rulers’ optimal technology choice. In contrast, in France and Scotland political instability prevailed, rendering the crossbow the optimal technology choice for rulers in these nations.
reply