4 ms·

I think that the way this paper discusses on the longbow as being the superior weapon may obscure a key fact here. Man for man, a crossbow is a superior weapon;

by lambda 11y ago

I think that the way this paper discusses on the longbow as being the superior weapon may obscure a key fact here. Man for man, a crossbow is a superior weapon; requires less skill to operate, has longer range, much easier to aim, better penetrating power. The main advantage of a longbow is how simple and cheap it is. Speed of reloading is another advantage the longbow has, but I think this article overstates it. While some crossbows do require using a stirrup or crank to load them, there are others that you can reload against your hips, and shoot from there, to increase your speed considerably, at some cost to accuracy. I know people who have managed to get 6 bullseyes at 20 yards on a crossbow in 30 seconds. Meanwhile, archers would not be firing at the maximum possible rate in battle; ammunition is a limited resource, and with the draw weights of warbows fatigue would set in quickly. Overall, with the archers they had and bows they had at the time, it is likely that the longbows were able to be a little faster than the crossbows, but it's not a night and day thing; and the range, accuracy, and penetrating power on the crossbows were better. The simplicity became an advantage in a few battles, which came after substantial rainstorms that caused problems with crossbows more complicated mechanisms. But the main advantage was how cheap and fast to produce they were; you could easily arm a large populace quite quickly. In order to take advantage of the longbow, you had to do that; you needed a very large number of archers to effectively take advantage of longbows, while you needed fewer archers to be effective with crossbows. But because it was cheap and simple, it was feasible to do that. I think that cost and simplicity of the longbows were their biggest advantage; speed perhaps a secondary factor, but the sheer numbers were likely to be more important. There is, of course, an interesting parallel here with some trends in modern military spending. The Joint Strike Fighter is a technological marvel; one of the most advanced pieces of military equipment ever. However, they are staggeringly expensive, and not actually the best dogfighters in the sky. You wonder how much more effective spending that money on more and simpler weaponry might have been.

barney54 11y ago
It's my understanding that a longbow has a greater range than a cross, especially one in the 1300s.
mattmanser 11y ago
You are directly contradicting a researched paper that explicitly contradicts everything you just said. Why do you think you're right? Read page mid-page 691-693. I'm also not sure what the point is of you talking about today's modern crossbows which are unsurprisingly easier to reload.
- amalcon 11y ago
  It also doesn't make that much sense to begin with. Part of the cost of using the longbow is the years of training and feeding the longbowman, and the cost of that training could easily buy multiple crossbows. If it weren't much more effective than a crossbow on a per-soldier basis, they would not have seen much use.
- lambda 11y ago
  First, this research paper is about a game theory analysis about a political situation that may have made the French and Scots leery of being vulnerable to usurpation by arming a large population. The material on pages 691-693 is all background material, not the actual research material of this paper. I did read 691-693. I am not contradicting any of the information in it; merely saying that I think they are overstating the direct superiority of the longbow. Strategically and tactically, it's clear that arming a large number of archers and using them in the early battle is superior, and the cost and simplicity of the longbow makes that much easier; but it's not because a single longbow is better than a single crossbow. I think that the longbow was a superior weapon, in the sense that the armies that adopted the longbow strategy clearly beat those that relied on crossbows, but I think that the way that the paper couches its introduction makes it sound like, side by side, a longbow was a superior weapon to a crossbow. I'm not talking about modern crossbows, I'm talking about reproduction medieval crossbows. I do medieval recreation as a hobby, I shoot longbow, I know people who shoot crossbow. The longbow is faster, though as I mention, I know people who can reload and shoot from the hip and get 6 accurate shots off in 30 seconds. And the crossbow is more accurate, gets better range, delivers more power, and is easier to shoot. Now, I don't shoot a 160 pound warbow, I don't have the strength for it. If I did, I would get some more power and range out of it, at the expense of accuracy and speed, as I would fatigue much more quickly. With a crossbow, you can use both arms and brace against your hip to draw, so even without any stirrup or crank, you can shoot a much heavier crossbow than you could a longbow. That extra power means more penetrating power and a flatter quicker flight (or more range if you increase your angle), and the fact that your muscles are not straining to hold the bow drawn means you can aim more accurately.
mhd 11y ago
Actually, some papers written about crossbows seriously doubt that the penetrating power was that much better -- if at all. The poundage certainly was, but it had to be -- crossbow arms are short and the arrow doesn't travel as long, thus less time is available to transfer energy. And "large populace" makes it sound like they just handed out crossbows to peasant levies, instead of them being very highly paid mercenaries. I mean, I can hand a bill or halberd to a peasant, too, but that didn't stop the Swiss from getting hired by most of Europe...
- lambda 11y ago
  Hmm. I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. Yes, the power imparted to the arrow is the integral of the poundage supplied by the bow or prod, over the distance that it is propelling the arrow, and that distance is shorter on a crossbow than a longbow. But you can have a much higher poundage and still be usable with a crossbow; you have two arms to draw together, and are supporting none of the draw weight while aiming. I've seen the analysis of draw weights of longbows on the Mary Rose; do you know where there are sources for that of crossbows? And yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like they were just handing out longbows. Longbows do require significantly more training. In part, the tradeoff for longbows is that you have cheaper weapons but need to put more into training the archers.
  - mhd 11y ago
    Payne-Gallwey's "The Book of the Crossbow" is at least in the same category as the paper's cited "Great Warbow". At one point he tests a 15th century siege crossbow with a draw weight of 1200 lbs, which is probably close to the upper limit (and requires a heavy cranequin). IIRC the Mary Rose longbows were about 150 lbs. But that's a steel bow, which is stiffer than wood, and the draw length is pretty small. W.F. Paterson published a test that compared a 70 lbs bow with a 740 lbs crossbow, and the initial velocity was about the same. Now how that equates to actual damage is another issue, and I haven't seen a really good test about that. One major factor that one has to consider is that damage varies with range, too. So what might look comparable at close range might be completely different at far range. (I think the Genoese were out-ranged by the English at Crecy.)
razzaj 11y ago
In fact http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php says the contrary to what you are claiming, and in their account of the Cercy battle they clearly mention how the longbow outranged, and out-powered the crossbow (look for paragraph "Crecy 1346: the Longbow's Finest Day"). Excerpt 1: "The crossbowmen had a lethal range of up to about 80 yards, and took up an initial position 100 yards from the English, in line across the field. Unfortunately for them they quickly found out that the longbow now had a lethal range of well over 100 yards. " Excerpt 2: "They were shocked to find that the longbows could now penetrate French armour, and could also down the horses."
- lambda 11y ago
  According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy#The_French_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy#The_Frenc..., and of course take with the same grain of salt applied to anything on Wikipedia, I don't have the sources on hand to cross check): The French army moved forward late in the afternoon, around 4pm after it had formed up. As it advanced, a sudden rainstorm broke over the field of battle. The English archers de-strung their bows to avoid the strings becoming damaged; the Genoese with their crossbows could take no such precautions, resulting in damage to their weapons.[26] The crossbowmen began their advance, however they had left their pavises back in the baggage train, and thus had no means of protection as they loaded their weapons.[27][28] The Genoese moved within range and discharged their weapons. Damaged by the rain, the slackened crossbows had little effect on the English line. The English archers shot their bows in retaliation, inflicting heavy casualties on the Genoese, causing them to retreat. The knights and nobles following in Alençon's division, seeing the routed mercenaries, hacked them down as they retreated. Froissart writes of the event: The English, who were drawn up in three divisions and seated on the ground, on seeing their enemies advance, arose boldly and fell into their ranks... You must know that these kings, earls, barons, and lords of France did not advance in any regular order... There were about fifteen thousand Genoese crossbowmen; but they were quite fatigued, having marched on foot that day six leagues, completely armed, and with their wet crossbows. They told the constable that they were not in a fit condition to do any great things that day in battle. The Count of Alençon, hearing this, was reported to say, "This is what one gets by employing such scoundrels, who fail when there is any need for them."[29] So, it doesn't sound like the crossbows were in pristine condition. Rather, their range was limited by the fact that their strings had gotten wet, while the relatively simpler (and easier to string) longbows were able to be protected from the rainstorm.

by lambda 11y ago

barney54 11y ago

It's my understanding that a longbow has a greater range than a cross, especially one in the 1300s.

mattmanser 11y ago

You are directly contradicting a researched paper that explicitly contradicts everything you just said. Why do you think you're right? Read page mid-page 691-693. I'm also not sure what the point is of you talking about today's modern crossbows which are unsurprisingly easier to reload.

amalcon 11y ago
It also doesn't make that much sense to begin with. Part of the cost of using the longbow is the years of training and feeding the longbowman, and the cost of that training could easily buy multiple crossbows. If it weren't much more effective than a crossbow on a per-soldier basis, they would not have seen much use.
lambda 11y ago
First, this research paper is about a game theory analysis about a political situation that may have made the French and Scots leery of being vulnerable to usurpation by arming a large population. The material on pages 691-693 is all background material, not the actual research material of this paper. I did read 691-693. I am not contradicting any of the information in it; merely saying that I think they are overstating the direct superiority of the longbow. Strategically and tactically, it's clear that arming a large number of archers and using them in the early battle is superior, and the cost and simplicity of the longbow makes that much easier; but it's not because a single longbow is better than a single crossbow. I think that the longbow was a superior weapon, in the sense that the armies that adopted the longbow strategy clearly beat those that relied on crossbows, but I think that the way that the paper couches its introduction makes it sound like, side by side, a longbow was a superior weapon to a crossbow. I'm not talking about modern crossbows, I'm talking about reproduction medieval crossbows. I do medieval recreation as a hobby, I shoot longbow, I know people who shoot crossbow. The longbow is faster, though as I mention, I know people who can reload and shoot from the hip and get 6 accurate shots off in 30 seconds. And the crossbow is more accurate, gets better range, delivers more power, and is easier to shoot. Now, I don't shoot a 160 pound warbow, I don't have the strength for it. If I did, I would get some more power and range out of it, at the expense of accuracy and speed, as I would fatigue much more quickly. With a crossbow, you can use both arms and brace against your hip to draw, so even without any stirrup or crank, you can shoot a much heavier crossbow than you could a longbow. That extra power means more penetrating power and a flatter quicker flight (or more range if you increase your angle), and the fact that your muscles are not straining to hold the bow drawn means you can aim more accurately.

mhd 11y ago

Actually, some papers written about crossbows seriously doubt that the penetrating power was that much better -- if at all. The poundage certainly was, but it had to be -- crossbow arms are short and the arrow doesn't travel as long, thus less time is available to transfer energy. And "large populace" makes it sound like they just handed out crossbows to peasant levies, instead of them being very highly paid mercenaries. I mean, I can hand a bill or halberd to a peasant, too, but that didn't stop the Swiss from getting hired by most of Europe...

lambda 11y ago
Hmm. I'd be interested in seeing your source for that. Yes, the power imparted to the arrow is the integral of the poundage supplied by the bow or prod, over the distance that it is propelling the arrow, and that distance is shorter on a crossbow than a longbow. But you can have a much higher poundage and still be usable with a crossbow; you have two arms to draw together, and are supporting none of the draw weight while aiming. I've seen the analysis of draw weights of longbows on the Mary Rose; do you know where there are sources for that of crossbows? And yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like they were just handing out longbows. Longbows do require significantly more training. In part, the tradeoff for longbows is that you have cheaper weapons but need to put more into training the archers.
- mhd 11y ago
  Payne-Gallwey's "The Book of the Crossbow" is at least in the same category as the paper's cited "Great Warbow". At one point he tests a 15th century siege crossbow with a draw weight of 1200 lbs, which is probably close to the upper limit (and requires a heavy cranequin). IIRC the Mary Rose longbows were about 150 lbs. But that's a steel bow, which is stiffer than wood, and the draw length is pretty small. W.F. Paterson published a test that compared a 70 lbs bow with a 740 lbs crossbow, and the initial velocity was about the same. Now how that equates to actual damage is another issue, and I haven't seen a really good test about that. One major factor that one has to consider is that damage varies with range, too. So what might look comparable at close range might be completely different at far range. (I think the Genoese were out-ranged by the English at Crecy.)

razzaj 11y ago

In fact http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php http://www.bowyers.com/bowyery_longbowOrigins.php says the contrary to what you are claiming, and in their account of the Cercy battle they clearly mention how the longbow outranged, and out-powered the crossbow (look for paragraph "Crecy 1346: the Longbow's Finest Day"). Excerpt 1: "The crossbowmen had a lethal range of up to about 80 yards, and took up an initial position 100 yards from the English, in line across the field. Unfortunately for them they quickly found out that the longbow now had a lethal range of well over 100 yards. " Excerpt 2: "They were shocked to find that the longbows could now penetrate French armour, and could also down the horses."

lambda 11y ago
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy#The_French_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy#The_Frenc..., and of course take with the same grain of salt applied to anything on Wikipedia, I don't have the sources on hand to cross check): The French army moved forward late in the afternoon, around 4pm after it had formed up. As it advanced, a sudden rainstorm broke over the field of battle. The English archers de-strung their bows to avoid the strings becoming damaged; the Genoese with their crossbows could take no such precautions, resulting in damage to their weapons.[26] The crossbowmen began their advance, however they had left their pavises back in the baggage train, and thus had no means of protection as they loaded their weapons.[27][28] The Genoese moved within range and discharged their weapons. Damaged by the rain, the slackened crossbows had little effect on the English line. The English archers shot their bows in retaliation, inflicting heavy casualties on the Genoese, causing them to retreat. The knights and nobles following in Alençon's division, seeing the routed mercenaries, hacked them down as they retreated. Froissart writes of the event: The English, who were drawn up in three divisions and seated on the ground, on seeing their enemies advance, arose boldly and fell into their ranks... You must know that these kings, earls, barons, and lords of France did not advance in any regular order... There were about fifteen thousand Genoese crossbowmen; but they were quite fatigued, having marched on foot that day six leagues, completely armed, and with their wet crossbows. They told the constable that they were not in a fit condition to do any great things that day in battle. The Count of Alençon, hearing this, was reported to say, "This is what one gets by employing such scoundrels, who fail when there is any need for them."[29] So, it doesn't sound like the crossbows were in pristine condition. Rather, their range was limited by the fact that their strings had gotten wet, while the relatively simpler (and easier to string) longbows were able to be protected from the rainstorm.