5 ms·

Crossbow - armor-piercing weapon was the RPG of Middle Ages. There were constant attempts to ban crossbows. Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow again

by chewz 6y ago

Crossbow - armor-piercing weapon was the RPG of Middle Ages. There were constant attempts to ban crossbows. Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow against Christians. > And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-church-banned-crossbow-warfare/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/catholic-churc...

Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
>Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow against Christians. Not sure if this is actually true. The council (specifically Canon 29) refers to ballistarii and sagittarii. Ballistarii may mean either crossbowmen or slingers, while sagittarii means archers. So there is no way of reading this as referring to crossbowmen alone- the ban is either against both crossbowmen and archers, or it's against slingers and archers and doesn't mention crossbows at all. Some commentators suggest that this canon is intending to prohibit archery contests- similarly, Canon 14 of the council condemns tournaments. Others point out that at the time of the council, the Pope was at war with King Roger of Sicily, whose armies employed large numbers of Muslim archers (not crossbowmen). The canon means that the Papal armies could shoot at Roger's Muslim soldiers, but Roger's Christian officers would be excommunicated if they ordered their men to shoot back... Text in Latin: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm And in English: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp
- chewz 6y ago
  Thanks for your input. This is the reason I love HN ;)
CorrectHorseBat 6y ago
> And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. I don't think that's true either, plate armor should give good protection against arrows and bolts.
b0rsuk 6y ago
A crossbow has several advantages, but it's main advantage is NOT power or armor piercing ability. That is likely a myth perpetuated by armchair historians with poor grasp of physics. The main advantage of a crossbow is that it's easy to use. Richard Lionheart, the English king, was famously killed by a boy wielding a crossbow. You need no more than 2 weeks to be proficient with a crossbow. To do that with an English longbow you'd need 7 years. There are various methods of drawing a crossbow that don't require great strength. Here's a (not exhaustive! Missing is for example latchet crossbow.) list of 9 ways to draw a crossbow: Tod's Workshop 9 MEDIEVAL CROSSBOW DEVICES - How do they work? ------------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdfmaC_t-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdfmaC_t-Q In the video, Tod Cutler shows 9 mechanisms used to span a crossbow, some of them require a specially modified crossbow and some don't. Crucially, he shows the numbers for mechanical advantage. Keep in mind the input number will vary. Cranequin is an amazing mechanism, but you only use a single hand. A windlass doesn't have such an impressive ratio, but you can use both hands. A belt may let you use your back muscles as well. Videos of Joe Gibbs, a 170lb man who can draw a 200lb longbow, show how much effort it is. In one of the videos - I can't locate which one it is - he explains it's no coincidence medieval illustrations show people bending forward when drawing a bow. He draws this way and it lets him put a little more extra into the arrow. Crossbow can be kept loaded for a long time, and you can line up your shot. This is especially important in sieges. Also, they have a controlled release. My observation is that missile weapons evolved to have more and more controlled release over the ages. Slings and atlatls required lots of skill to use, bow is a bit more controlled, crossbow even more controlled (less things to mess up). Slings were even more powerful than bows but even more training was required. ====================== Now to the power issue. The myth is that they hit extra hard. A light crossbow (loaded by hands, or using a goat's foot lever) actually has power comparable to a short bow. Something like 60-80lbs. Witness a nominally 350lbs failing to penetrate a steel helmet: Can a 350lb Medieval Crossbow Penetrate Steel Helmets? (16 / 14ga) -------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGZl5MVFPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGZl5MVFPg Why? The answer is short power stroke. Just because a bow or crossbow can be drawn with a certain force doesn't mean they impart that force to the arrow! Power stroke is the distance between the end of the bowstring, when fully loaded, and between the front of the bow. Crossbows are inefficient when it comes to transferring energy, especially the ones made using medieval technology and metallurgy. Steel bows are nowhere near as flexible as good wood or modern alloys. This was proven time and again using a chronometer (projectile speed meter). Heavy crossbows, meaning those loaded with a windlass, hit about as hard as a war longbow, which is 100-120lbs. My numbers are from Tod's Workshop youtube channel. Both a longbow and a heavy crossbow are strong enough to pierce mail armor - piercing is actually its weakness. Mail is good against slashing blades and blunt objects. Even a light crossbow punctures mail. But they fail spectacularly at puncturing plate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ And a longbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE And here is the most powerful traditional crossbow I've ever found on youtube Shooting a 1257 lb Great Horn Composite Crossbow - version 2.0 ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5M0QKXtWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5M0QKXtWU It is 14/15 century, so pretty late medieval tech (Swiss). Crossbows don't get bigger than that. It's practically a very mobile siege weapon. Another downside of short power stroke is that the crossbow bolt (arrow) accelerates much more rapidly than a bow arrow. So it must be sturdier to withstand the forces, which is why bolts were so thick. A thick projectile has more air resistance and worse armor penetration. So yes, crossbow is the RPG weapon, but in the sense of "Role Playing Games" and not "Rocked Propelled Grenade". And here is how much of expertise you need to make crossbows the medieval way: A Castle Fit For Fighting | Secrets of the Castle (2/5) | Absolute History ---------- https://youtu.be/u6v-3Ai88oM?t=1218 https://youtu.be/u6v-3Ai88oM?t=1218 ========================== I hope I've proved that power was not the advantage of crossbows. The weapon had many advantages, and the basic shape of the weapon and its trigger is used to this day in rifles because it's so good. If power is what you're after, check out staff slings (Fustibalus). This thing is SCARY, it cracks coconuts at a distance. Slingshot VS. Shepherds Staff Sling ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFQYNfJqqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFQYNfJqqY This is a very solid video with measurements.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The tradeoffs for crossbows are not as clear as it might appear, and it took much longer for the crossbow to overtake the longbow in medieval Europe than most people imagine. Yes, crossbows have massive draw weights compared to a longbow; but this heavy weight comes with two drawbacks. First it requires a very heavy and less aerodynamically efficient bolt in order to survive the extreme acceleration; this provides plenty of close up power but means crossbow bolts lose their energy quicker over distance than a longbow. Second the reloading procedure is very slow, a crossbowman can fire about 1/6th as fast as a longbowman, which reduces volume of fire and means that the crossbowman needs some sort of cover while they look down and fiddle with their crossbow. Historically only China used the crossbow heavily, for Europe it was probably more a hunting weapon than anything else for the first ~500 years they were in the region. The main benefit of the crossbow appears to not be penetration, but ease of use. Training a longbowman takes a lifetime (medieval English Archers had skeletal differences due to the constant training), and effectively requires handing out weapons to your peasants. This is not a good idea if your peasants are in fact, serfs. With a crossbow you can hand them out and train a soldier how to use it in a week or so, and then take the crossbows back later and not worry about them being used against you in a peasant revolt. You simply can't do this with a longbow due to the constant training they need to be effective. > And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. This description of crossbows trivially defeating armor is not true. Perhaps a crossbow could defeat cheap iron armor at close ranges, but the primary sections of high quality steel armor will be effectively immune to all projectiles; later examples were in fact actually capable of stopping bullets. The real risk was the thinner sections around the groin, shoulders, or face mask, where the armor was typically thin enough to be defeated by either bolt or arrow. This historical account sounds a bit like a moral panic of the day, not an accurate description of the behavior of armor against crossbow bolts.

by chewz 6y ago

Ichthypresbyter 6y ago

>Second Lateran Council banned use of crossbow against Christians. Not sure if this is actually true. The council (specifically Canon 29) refers to ballistarii and sagittarii. Ballistarii may mean either crossbowmen or slingers, while sagittarii means archers. So there is no way of reading this as referring to crossbowmen alone- the ban is either against both crossbowmen and archers, or it's against slingers and archers and doesn't mention crossbows at all. Some commentators suggest that this canon is intending to prohibit archery contests- similarly, Canon 14 of the council condemns tournaments. Others point out that at the time of the council, the Pope was at war with King Roger of Sicily, whose armies employed large numbers of Muslim archers (not crossbowmen). The canon means that the Papal armies could shoot at Roger's Muslim soldiers, but Roger's Christian officers would be excommunicated if they ordered their men to shoot back... Text in Latin: http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/es/index3.htm And in English: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran2.asp

chewz 6y ago
Thanks for your input. This is the reason I love HN ;)

CorrectHorseBat 6y ago

> And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. I don't think that's true either, plate armor should give good protection against arrows and bolts.

b0rsuk 6y ago

A crossbow has several advantages, but it's main advantage is NOT power or armor piercing ability. That is likely a myth perpetuated by armchair historians with poor grasp of physics. The main advantage of a crossbow is that it's easy to use. Richard Lionheart, the English king, was famously killed by a boy wielding a crossbow. You need no more than 2 weeks to be proficient with a crossbow. To do that with an English longbow you'd need 7 years. There are various methods of drawing a crossbow that don't require great strength. Here's a (not exhaustive! Missing is for example latchet crossbow.) list of 9 ways to draw a crossbow: Tod's Workshop 9 MEDIEVAL CROSSBOW DEVICES - How do they work? ------------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdfmaC_t-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IdfmaC_t-Q In the video, Tod Cutler shows 9 mechanisms used to span a crossbow, some of them require a specially modified crossbow and some don't. Crucially, he shows the numbers for mechanical advantage. Keep in mind the input number will vary. Cranequin is an amazing mechanism, but you only use a single hand. A windlass doesn't have such an impressive ratio, but you can use both hands. A belt may let you use your back muscles as well. Videos of Joe Gibbs, a 170lb man who can draw a 200lb longbow, show how much effort it is. In one of the videos - I can't locate which one it is - he explains it's no coincidence medieval illustrations show people bending forward when drawing a bow. He draws this way and it lets him put a little more extra into the arrow. Crossbow can be kept loaded for a long time, and you can line up your shot. This is especially important in sieges. Also, they have a controlled release. My observation is that missile weapons evolved to have more and more controlled release over the ages. Slings and atlatls required lots of skill to use, bow is a bit more controlled, crossbow even more controlled (less things to mess up). Slings were even more powerful than bows but even more training was required. ====================== Now to the power issue. The myth is that they hit extra hard. A light crossbow (loaded by hands, or using a goat's foot lever) actually has power comparable to a short bow. Something like 60-80lbs. Witness a nominally 350lbs failing to penetrate a steel helmet: Can a 350lb Medieval Crossbow Penetrate Steel Helmets? (16 / 14ga) -------------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGZl5MVFPg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqGZl5MVFPg Why? The answer is short power stroke. Just because a bow or crossbow can be drawn with a certain force doesn't mean they impart that force to the arrow! Power stroke is the distance between the end of the bowstring, when fully loaded, and between the front of the bow. Crossbows are inefficient when it comes to transferring energy, especially the ones made using medieval technology and metallurgy. Steel bows are nowhere near as flexible as good wood or modern alloys. This was proven time and again using a chronometer (projectile speed meter). Heavy crossbows, meaning those loaded with a windlass, hit about as hard as a war longbow, which is 100-120lbs. My numbers are from Tod's Workshop youtube channel. Both a longbow and a heavy crossbow are strong enough to pierce mail armor - piercing is actually its weakness. Mail is good against slashing blades and blunt objects. Even a light crossbow punctures mail. But they fail spectacularly at puncturing plate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMT6hjwY8NQ And a longbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBxdTkddHaE And here is the most powerful traditional crossbow I've ever found on youtube Shooting a 1257 lb Great Horn Composite Crossbow - version 2.0 ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5M0QKXtWU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA5M0QKXtWU It is 14/15 century, so pretty late medieval tech (Swiss). Crossbows don't get bigger than that. It's practically a very mobile siege weapon. Another downside of short power stroke is that the crossbow bolt (arrow) accelerates much more rapidly than a bow arrow. So it must be sturdier to withstand the forces, which is why bolts were so thick. A thick projectile has more air resistance and worse armor penetration. So yes, crossbow is the RPG weapon, but in the sense of "Role Playing Games" and not "Rocked Propelled Grenade". And here is how much of expertise you need to make crossbows the medieval way: A Castle Fit For Fighting | Secrets of the Castle (2/5) | Absolute History ---------- https://youtu.be/u6v-3Ai88oM?t=1218 https://youtu.be/u6v-3Ai88oM?t=1218 ========================== I hope I've proved that power was not the advantage of crossbows. The weapon had many advantages, and the basic shape of the weapon and its trigger is used to this day in rifles because it's so good. If power is what you're after, check out staff slings (Fustibalus). This thing is SCARY, it cracks coconuts at a distance. Slingshot VS. Shepherds Staff Sling ---------- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFQYNfJqqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFQYNfJqqY This is a very solid video with measurements.

ashtonkem 6y ago

The tradeoffs for crossbows are not as clear as it might appear, and it took much longer for the crossbow to overtake the longbow in medieval Europe than most people imagine. Yes, crossbows have massive draw weights compared to a longbow; but this heavy weight comes with two drawbacks. First it requires a very heavy and less aerodynamically efficient bolt in order to survive the extreme acceleration; this provides plenty of close up power but means crossbow bolts lose their energy quicker over distance than a longbow. Second the reloading procedure is very slow, a crossbowman can fire about 1/6th as fast as a longbowman, which reduces volume of fire and means that the crossbowman needs some sort of cover while they look down and fiddle with their crossbow. Historically only China used the crossbow heavily, for Europe it was probably more a hunting weapon than anything else for the first ~500 years they were in the region. The main benefit of the crossbow appears to not be penetration, but ease of use. Training a longbowman takes a lifetime (medieval English Archers had skeletal differences due to the constant training), and effectively requires handing out weapons to your peasants. This is not a good idea if your peasants are in fact, serfs. With a crossbow you can hand them out and train a soldier how to use it in a week or so, and then take the crossbows back later and not worry about them being used against you in a peasant revolt. You simply can't do this with a longbow due to the constant training they need to be effective. > And Western knights did not like it. Their armor protected them from most weapons they would face with the exception of the longbow, a weapon that took years to learn and decades to master. But crossbows could slice right through the armor at greater range than even a longbow, and shooters could be trained in hours or days. This description of crossbows trivially defeating armor is not true. Perhaps a crossbow could defeat cheap iron armor at close ranges, but the primary sections of high quality steel armor will be effectively immune to all projectiles; later examples were in fact actually capable of stopping bullets. The real risk was the thinner sections around the groin, shoulders, or face mask, where the armor was typically thin enough to be defeated by either bolt or arrow. This historical account sounds a bit like a moral panic of the day, not an accurate description of the behavior of armor against crossbow bolts.