"How do crossbows stack up with the much discussed longbow?" Topic

I was reading a book where the author was making an argument that the longbow was not all that superior. He claimed that the crossbowmen worked in teams with two crossbows, where one man reloaded and the other shot. This kept up a constant rate of fire. If the crossbow was also more powerful and had a comparable range, wouldn't it be the better weapon?

Has anyone else heard of this tactic?

Is it possible that the much praised English longbow is merely pro-English, anti-French propaganda? Could it be that the major French losses were due to poor use of the crossbowmen (no pavises at Crecy, and no respect at Agincourt)?

Does anybody know how the crossbow held up in the less famous fights where the French did alright?

But if it required two men to keep up the same rate don't you actually have half the rate?

I would actually think that pro-English propaganda wouldn't belittle the crossbow as it would make the English seem as though they won because they had better stuff than because they were actually better, which would be the point of pro-English propaganda.

Longbows had better range and a faster rate of fire.

Longbows could also work in teams I suppose but it isn't necessary to maintain a rate of fire.

The crossbow rate of fire would be seriously hurt if one of the team was hit.

link

Interesting read. A bow with 150 pound draw could deliver a pretty serious hit.

LLC aka Ron

Is it possible that the much praised English longbow is merely pro-English, anti-French propaganda?

That has always puzzled me. It would be much more patriotic to claim that superior MEN, not weapons, beat the Froggies. Making the longbow the super weapon always seemed bass ackwards to me.

I think the author's idea was that there was always a loaded crossbow ready to fire.

I had not herd of this before, so it could be a mistake, but it seems reasonable.

Just so you folks know, the propaganda remark was just to cause some good natured trouble. People still have some deep feelings about HYW French/English relations, and I know there are a lot of English folks here. Being an American,think its funny (though as far as the HYW goes, I have always had pro-French sentiments).

But if it required two men to keep up the same rate don't you actually have half the rate?

Precisely. Under this system, a body of 2,000 crossbowmen would only have 1,000 men actively shooting at any given time, vs. a body of 2,000 longbowmen in which all 2,000 are shooting simultaneously. Also, while a trained archer can nock and loose an arrow at a rate ranging from 1 every 6 seconds to as much as 1 every 3 seconds, there is no way you can cock and load a crossbow— especially one with a windlass— with anything near that kind of rate, whether you consider a two man team shooting alternating volleys or not. But let's assume a full "four line volley" system could achieve an effective rate of 1 every six seconds, and see the results over the course of a minute for opposing forces of longbows and crossbows consisting of 2,000 men each.

1st volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
2nd volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
3rd volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
4th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
5th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
6th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
7th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
8th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
9th volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
10t volley: Longbow: 2,000 arrows  Crossbow: 500 bolts.
Total shot: Longbow: 20,000 arrows  Crossbow: 5,000 bolts.

Guess who wins.

"… always seemed bass ackwards to me"

You're talking about people who spell color with a u.

NOTE: The above is a joke that is no way meant to offend a group of people nor the thousands of those that died in times of war.

"Guess who wins."

2000 vs. 2000, longbow hands down.

Problem with your analysis is is that any idiot can load a crossbow and a moron with decent eye sight can shoot the cross bow. Gathering a couple of thousand idiots and a couple thousand morons is much easier then training 2000 longbowmen from birth.

So, compare 2,000 vs. 4,000 and the answer gets a little more interesting. The bowmen will get twice as many hits but there's twice as many crossbowmen. Consult the Lancaster Equations and you'll find the crossbowmen have a healthy advantage.

the crossbow was in use longer and there is your answer.
Weren't the HYW a french/french affair anyway, with all the interrelations of royalty?

Saw something on the H channel about the Emperor Chins' use of crossbows in alternate volley, ah believe ?
Wouldn't the use of the crossbow require less "muscle training" than a longbow ? Kind of like why the firearm became preferred ? Think of 5K trained longbowmen at Waterloo ? <chuckle> Just my take on it ?

Paul

I think that AwalesII hit it on the head. The advantage of the crossbow is that it took less training to be able to use it effectively and while a technically more complicated device, could be made from more universally available materials. I'm positive that somebody here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that it took a properly mature English yew tree to make a longbow.

Which one was better? Assuming that our ancestors weren't stupid, I think proliferation gives us a guide to what the armies of the time thought. In spite of its HYW fame, the English Longbow pretty much stayed just that, while crossbows were used for centuries across Europe.

I liken it to the comparison between the English Long Land pattern musket and the Pennsylvania Long Rifle. Modern romantics favor the latter, but those who actually had to train, organize and equip armies at the time preferred the Brown Bess.

Seems to me that the crossbow's advantage (far easier
to learn to use, thus one could equip many and train
them in a short period of time) could be countered
depending upon the circumstances of use.

A very high rate of fire (the longbow) creating an arrow
storm such as the French experienced could not be
achieved by the crossbow. The longbow delivered
plunging fire at range, while the crossbow had a
flatter (not flat, but flatter) trajectory.

OTOH, a large number of 'new' shooters, such as could be
fielded once the crossbowmen were equipped and trained,
might be just as effective.

Longbowmen can use mass fire (front rank + half the second rank); Crossbowmen only front rank – same range, but crossbow is strength 4 v. longbow strength 3. I have crossbowmen as I can use them in my Norman AND HYW French armies; WAB-speaking that is.

The crossbow had a huge impact on warfare. It allowed the lowly peasant to pierce the armour of a high born night. The Pope banned it. If not for the development of firearms it might have been the principal weapon used today. In fact it had similar performance to the 18th century musket (range, rate of fire and lethality).

I've run into various comments about problems self bows such as the longbow might have at high temperature.

Here's a couple of net examples:

link

link

So a steel crossbow might well be a superior weapon in an Italian summer.

The longbow delivered
plunging fire at range, while the crossbow had a
flatter (not flat, but flatter) trajectory.

This gets repeated and it isn't true. The bow always was drawn to full draw and held up to c. 43 degrees to get maximum range. The crossbow was identical in that respect. There is no "flatter trajectory", but simply maximum range at an angle of c. 43 degrees. And obviously there is only "full draw" for the crossbow too. The crossbow could deliver plunging fire exactly the same way as a bow: shooting at a very high angle and achieving an almost vertical dropping missile "shower."

Longbowmen can use mass fire (front rank + half the second rank); Crossbowmen only front rank –

Those are game rules terms there, but they don't translate into reality: "front rank", as in single line of men, would be less men than fully opened skirmish order several ranks deep with full visibility.

Any crossbow unit could shoot as densely as a typical archer unit, with easier facility, because when loaded, crossbows can be shot lying down and kneeling (reloading, however, requires standing up).

In the field a crossbow unit could shoot a bolt every c. 15 seconds. An archer unit using volley fire would get off an arrow every c. ten seconds. The bolt hits with greater impact because the prod has more draw weight than a standard "warbow" does (consider a crossbow at over 150 lbs, whereas most bows are under 100 lbs: and a crossbow is spanned either with both hands or with the leg pulling the string back via a belt hook or similar, much easier than drawing 80 lbs with three or two fingers, i.e. an average guy could be trained to the crossbow without having to increase his natural strength).

Now, all the talk about "lifetime archers" is moot on a field where the archers are an empirical fact: they are there after training in their craft since boyhood, and the enemy has to deal with them. And no question, a dense unit of c. 5,000 English longbow is not going to go down to an equal number of crossbowmen, not even the best of the best from Genoa: some source(s) say that the French crossbow at Agincourt got off one volley that didn't do much damage, then they skedaddled. That's town militia in the open field trying to take on longbowmen with superior numbers and firepower, no way.

The only battle I know of where crossbowmen operated in pairs as described above is the battle outside Jaffa during the 3rd Crusade: but there, also, the whole battleline was spearmen in front, crossbowmen behind them, with always a loaded crossbow waiting for the next body of Mameluks to come riding into range. They held off the Ayyubids easily, and that's mainly because "Saracen" tactics did not allow for dense horsearcher fire, and not shooting at speed like a Steppes Turkic unit would employ: the crossbow had a perfect target at Jaffa: vulnerable horseflesh inside effective range before the Muslims could mass superior firepower. The eyewitnesses describe the field in front of the Christians as littered with bodies before the Muslims finally called it quits.

The only other (than Crecy) battle I know of where archers faced down crossbowmen in their thousands was Benevento 1266, where the composite bow armed Sicilians (Muslim mercenaries) won versus c. an equal number of crossbowmen, and the archers won handily. The crossbowmen were not covered by heavy spearmen, nor carrying pavises. The weapon employed by the archers was the virtual equal of the crossbow in impact energy and so the higher rate of fire turned the difference.

I always thought that a windlass crossbow 160lbs had a greater range than a 100lbs longbow?

Sieges were far more common than battles in the Middle Ages. Crossbows were better siege weapons than longbows for the reasons of training already stated but also because they were handier to fire through narrow apertures, could be loaded under cover, and arguably, had better long range accuracy. There is quite a debate over the ballistics of the different weapons which I do not want to get involved in. Interesting piece of trivia: Joan of Arc was wounded by a crossbow bolt although her enemy was English – but it was a siege.

DougL, back in my SCA days, I used a crossbow, stirrup/
leg spanned.

You're right, you can indeed elevate the crossbow and
launch the bolt at a raised angle.

Every time I did that, the bolt didn't 'fly' as an arrow
does, thus my comment.

"(reloading, however, requires standing up)."

not true you can reload on your back or side while on the ground faster then on your feet with less strain to your arms and back. because you hold the bow in place and can push with your foot, not pull up with your arms and back that you have to do when your standing.

also you can load aim and fire a 150lb draw cross bow about 4 times a min.while on the ground,(some people a lot faster) hitting head sized targets at 50yards.

I always thought that a windlass crossbow 160lbs had a greater range than a 100lbs longbow?

Actually, the windlass spanned crossbow was not regularly a battlefield weapon in the first place, being so slow to load that it is only good in sieges: and it has in excess of 1,000! lbs draw weight, not 160: the "160" was the standard stirrup crossbow, spanned with two hands or belt hook usually. Even despite its massive draw weight, the windlass crossbow did not have a much greater range than a 100 lb longbow: it's because of the equally massive inefficiency inherent in the shortness and thickness of the steel prod. All crossbows suffered from poor efficiency; thus the much great draw weights only sort of equalling a bow of c. half the draw weight.

"(reloading, however, requires standing up)."

not true you can reload on your back or side while on the ground faster then on your feet…

I was referring to units in close order. What you say is true only for individuals and skirmishers.

Hi

Crossbows vary as much or more than bows in capability.

First the "propaganda" part. Actually, in the day, bragging about 150# bows would suggest a super englishman to the rest of the world. The average peasant small game bow is only 30# or so. It is like everyone driving motorscooters in europe seeing a guy on litre crotch rocket.

Anyway, the average underfed peasant doesn't draw a 70# or 100# bow, thus the yeoman the english used, whatever draw weight you believe, ARE supermen compared to the french.

HOWEVER, most any adult using the stronger backmuscles can produce a 160 draw for a crossbow.

One of the problems with the subject is that back then, in shooting competitions, archer would often compete with what were called "footbows", sometimes it would be understood. The short version is that laying on your back, you can use leg and back muscles to draw up to 300# longbows! The turks made a national sport out of this type of shooting. And you have reports of 700 yard shots.

For propaganda purposes, these reports often describe the weight, but not the conditions.

The italians during the early thematic period seemed to be usually archer screened by pavice or spear and shield. In the 9th century they started switching to the crossbow for the reasons mentioned above. Simpler and easier. Their practice ranges where they survive are 250 to 300 yards long.

Now, most of these were composite bow staves imported from the crimea of ca 150-200#. More efficient than the simple wood self staves of, say, the Gascons in the HYW. There were heavier crossbows including the fabled steel bows. The above crossbows can be cocked by most adults (my 120# wife could cock my modern 175 with eather her back or with a goats prod). There are steel crossbows cocked by windlass with drawweights of up to 1000#, but these aren't field weapons, but small siege weapons.

I find it curious among wargamers that they will obsess with the differences between a 6' spear, and two foot increments until they call it a "pike", but not pay attention to the idea that there is more than ONE bow and ONE crossbow.

Ed….I dont know about your SCA experience, mine was that using missile reqired a very light bow or crossbow with massive things on the front to preclude injury. A 20# bow with a tennis ball on the end has very different drag characteristics than a flight tip. And the parabolic arc looks very different because of the problems with sectional density… a basic description of the mass versus frontal area. Most real world crossbows shoot a bolt of similar mass to a bow's long range flight arrow. Once it leaves the weapon the arc and "carry" look the same if the initial velocity is the same. A crossbow has much higher energy losses than a bow, but you see the point.

Rocky

Rocky, I never shot the xbow 'for real' in SCA events.

I used a standard bolt (weight, length, flights) when
practicing, since I was going to (and never did) try
hunting with the xbow.

My 'regular' bow at the time was a 50 # draw (not a
'modern' bow, but a 'real' bow) and I had to hold a
higher POA to get the same strike point on the target
as I did with the xbow (#130 draw). To me, this
suggests a flatter trajectory, but admittedly I'd not
considered the difference in draw weights.

Yeah, your 50# bow was akin to an 80# crossbow; quite a bit of difference compared to a 130# crossbow.