Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[kyoryu]

Thank you all for the insight. It would appear that at any distance where a trained fighter couldn't disarm the shooter, the physical limits of movement are slower than the time it would take a bullet to travel the interim, even if the target started moving as the trigger was pulled.

I know I'm late to the party, but let me bring up another PoV.

I used to play goalie in hockey. Goalies frequently react to shots from players that math says are impossible to react to due to reaction time etc.

The trick is that they don't react to the shot. They react to the shooter - his stick, the way he holds his body, the angle of the stick blade, etc.

So your character might not be able to respond to the gun being fired, but it might make some sense to have him or her respond to miniscule cues in the shooter - a slight tensing of the muscles, a small grimace, arm stiffened to brace for the recoil of the guy, muscle twitches as the finger starts to pull the trigger, etc.

[fusilier]

They also have very small, light bolts. Many machine pistols use tungsten inserts in the bolts to weight them down and reduce rate of fire. The skorpion uses an 'ingenious' *cough* method which involves having a spring and a weight bouncing up and down in the grip, which does wonders for accuracy...

Yes the weight of the bolt has an influence too, but the bolt recoil distance is sometimes over-looked. When the Villar Perosa action was converted to a more proper sub-machine gun, they managed to retard the firing rate to something around 900 rpm, and I believe that involved using a heavier bolt (and maybe some other tricks).

[Brainfart]

And having a heavier bolt bouncing back and forth in the gun also does absolute wonders for accuracy.

[Norsesmithy]

That depends more on the rest of the gun. I've not heard the people shooting NRA high power complain about the accuracy penalty of their H3 buffers and national match bolt carriers (both of which are tungsten weighted rather heavier than the standard items).

A heavy bolt certainly doesn't help, if your rifle is of a design that does not have a neat and linear action motion.

[Spiryt]

So, in this discussion people are claiming that there's nothing profitable in using crossbow at all....

Only reason to use it is when you can use bow.

I don't agree with it all, and if anyone is interested in discussion it will be better place that poor gaming thread.

[Shademan]

they are obviously delusional. if there was no point to a crossbow(like, low training time, piercing power) NOBODY would use it.
thats that.

[Mike_G]

they are obviously delusional. if there was no point to a crossbow(like, low training time, piercing power) NOBODY would use it.
thats that.

A crossbow is a good choice if you want to turn a bunch of recruits into an effective unit quickly. It's easy to use, and easy to get halfway decent accuracy. You can trun a hundred conscripts into crossbowmen much quicker than into good archers.

But if you have men who've put in the years of practice, you're better off with longbow or a recurve. A bow shoots faster. Much, much faster if the crossbow is heavy enough draw to have a better range or more power (a bow delivers more power to an arrow than a crossbow of equal draw weight, since it applies force for a longer period), and in the hands of a trained archer, bows are more accurate at long range. Plunging fire is tough with a crossbow.

So, in a game of individual characters, where you don't have to put effort into a lifetime of training, or outfit a company, if you can use a bow you are better off to take it over a crossbow.

The Duke of Wellington floated the idea of a regiment of Longbowmen in the Napoleonic Wars. If they'd had enough trained archers, they would likely have outperformed musketeers. But a raw recruit could learn how to fire a Brown Bess quicker than he could become a decent archer. Technology didn't make the longbow obsolete, a lack of trained archers did.

[Xuc Xac]

Another advantage of the crossbow is that it takes zero effort to hold it. If you draw a bow (especially one with a high draw weight) and hold it without releasing, you'll start to shake very quickly. If you just want to fire a lot of arrows quickly without aiming any more than "somewhere over that way", then a bow is great. If you want to line up a shot and aim carefully, the crossbow is much better.

[endoperez]

Another advantage of the crossbow is that it takes zero effort to hold it. If you draw a bow (especially one with a high draw weight) and hold it without releasing, you'll start to shake very quickly. If you just want to fire a lot of arrows quickly without aiming any more than "somewhere over that way", then a bow is great. If you want to line up a shot and aim carefully, the crossbow is much better.

I assume that archers learn to aim without having to keep the bow under tension for as long as it takes to aim a gun or a crossbow. Not that the latter couldn't aim fast, but archers have incentive to learn to aim faster...

Also, at least English longbowmen were indeed trained to fire a lot of arrows quickly "somewhere over that way". They didn't have to hit a specific man, just the army. I think the modern practice of firing at "clouts" roots back to this kind of training; I've read better explanations before but I don't remember any details.

[Xuc Xac]

I assume that archers learn to aim without having to keep the bow under tension for as long as it takes to aim a gun or a crossbow. Not that the latter couldn't aim fast, but archers have incentive to learn to aim faster...

They all operate in an environment where "kill the other guys before they kill us" is the order of the day. How much more incentive do you need?

[Shademan]

the heaviest crossbows (the one you needed a windlass to load) could punch trough armour. a lonbow could not penetrate a proper breastplate with padding beneath, not even at close range.
go to youtube and search for "weapons that made britain armour" and they'll talk abit about it.
Cant link now. way to...bad

[Rion]

the heaviest crossbows (the one you needed a windlass to load) could punch trough armour. a lonbow could not penetrate a proper breastplate with padding beneath, not even at close range.
go to youtube and search for "weapons that made britain armour" and they'll talk abit about it.
Cant link now. way to...bad

Actually they proved that longbows could penetrate plate armour at short range. Though it depended on how it was made.

[Shademan]

I dont think they used padding that test. and i dont think that was a italian plate. Just saw the first link tho

[Mike_G]

I just watched it, and they did use padding.

No idea how good the breastplate was.

I haven't seen any more convincing tests on crossbows vs plate than longbows.

Nothing wrong with a crossbow, but I think an expert longbowman beats an expert crossbowman. A mediocre crossbowman beats a mediocre archer hands down. That's the advantage in a military setting. If you can train and field more troops more quickly, you have a distinct advantage.

If you told me "Here's young Alfred. He's eight years old, and he's your new apprentice. Turn him into a footsoldier," I'd start him on the longbow and in a decade, I'd have a very good soldier. If you said "These dozen men are the local militia. The Mongols will be here come Spring. Do what you can," I'd rustle up some crossbows.

[Brainfart]

the heaviest crossbows (the one you needed a windlass to load) could punch trough armour. a lonbow could not penetrate a proper breastplate with padding beneath, not even at close range.
go to youtube and search for "weapons that made britain armour" and they'll talk abit about it.
Cant link now. way to...bad

The heaviest crossbows barely achieved superiority over the heaviest bows. Crossbows have tiny draw lengths, which is almost as important as draw weight for propelling a pointy projectile across a battlefield. The immense draw weights are just compensating for that.

Their advantages have been mentioned though: they're comparatively easy to train on, don't require a lot of skill maintenance, allow shots to be prepared for significant duration in advance, and don't really dictate your firing position. However, they were comparatively expensive since you require mechanical work and costly materials to obtain a good crossbow.

~

If the breastplate that was penetrated was the roughly-finished black one, that's a bit of a strawman. I've seen the documentary in question (though I haven't seen the links since Youtube is not cooperating), and they state fairly clearly that the breastplate was a munitions breastplate. Basically, your garden variety made-in-China crap. Pitting that against the absolute top end of bows strikes me as being moderately unfair. The better quality one with the stop rib fared much better, though they didn't provide any specifics on the materials and construction.

In any case, I don't think any weapon really achieved complete superiority over protective equipment in the medieval era and vice versa.

[Galloglaich]

I'm going to go against the grain on this one. The idea that longbows and recurves were better than crossbows is basically from Victorian era English propaganda. If you read records from Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the people in the know back then considered the crossbow was the weapon everybody wanted. In Italy and Central Europe where all the new technology came from and Renaissance was happening 100 years before it was in England or France, and where they could afford any weapon they wanted, the crossbow was king until replaced by the arquebus and the musket (which were the true 'anybody can use them' weapons).

That is not to say the longbow was ineffective. And it was in fact used in Europe outside of England. But it was not the uberweapon that most people think and it was not miles ahead of the crossbow. If it was, the English would have taken over Europe. My conclusion is that the two weapon systems were about equal, but the crossbow was clearly more in demand and more widely feared.

Some differences.

At long range, the longbow is an indirect shot weapon. Crossbows shoot in a flatter trajectory and were a direct-shot weapon. Crossbows were more accurate, and according to the people in period, were more dangerous on impact. Armor, for example, was proofed against crossbows long before it was proofed against guns, and it was never, as far as I know, proofed against longbows or recurves. Longbows were longer ranged, but only at area targets, and on the battlefield were most often used something like a light mortar. Beyond short range it was difficult (not impossible, but quite difficult) to target an individual human or even a horse). Crossbows can be held in readiness indefinitely, like a gun and within their effective range (something like 150-200 meters for the most powerful) were considered deadly accurate.

The rate of fire issue is largely a myth. The crossbow was deployed behind a pavise and typically two or even three weapons were used. A longbowman might be able to get 10 arrows a minute, whereas a lone crossbowman can only manage 4-6 bolts per minute. But with a second guy loading while the first guy shoots (as was actually done in real life) the rate is much closer, probably about 8 bolts per minute. Nobody is certain because as far as I know, nobody has tested this yet as there aren't a lot of trained teams around (this concept hasn't filtered into re-enactor circles very widely yet). In period however, there was certainly no consensus that longbows were superior.

The 'lack of training' is another BIG myth. Crossbows were not weapons given to raw levies. Crossbowmen were highly paid specialists, often imported from far away. Genoa made a fortune exporting mercenaries across Europe and into the Middle East. Crossbows were expensive, much more expensive than longbows. In fact a cranequin (the most expensive spanning device for the strongest bows) alone was more expensive than a longbow.

On crossbows vs. Recurves. Richard Ceoer de Leon was able to effectively neutralize Turkish and Arab mounted cavalry using recurves with well deployed crossbow infantry. This speaks volumes of the dangerous effectiveness of Crossbows. In fact after encounters with the 'Franj' the Arabs and Turks quickly adopted the 'caws ferengi' (Frankish bow) as they called the crossbow, which they used in large numbers primarily for siege warfare. After the Middle Eastern crusades were over the cranequin lead to widespread use of mounted crossbowmen.

On crossbows vs. longbows. We all know of the famous battles where the longbow defeated the crossbow; Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. But these were all three cases where the French aristocracy threw caution, wisdom, and strategy to the wind. The genoese crossbowmen were positioned as an afterthought, in the worst possible locations, and used in adverse weather. In other encounters, such as between the Swiss and the Burgundians, the longbow did not fare as well. Saying a crossbow is better than a longbow or vise versa is a bit like saying a machine gun is better than a mortar. The fact is both remain in wide use by modern militaries, because they have different roles.

Of course there were crossbows and crossbows. They ranged from light weapons which could be used by anybody, to very strong weapons which were dangerous to play with unless you knew what you were doing.

In fact, one of the main reasons we don't know for sure about crossbows is that almost nobody can make replicas of the real military grade types from the Renaissance. There are only a handful of people around the world today who can make a 1200 lb draw prod. There aren't many of them floating around, and the antiques are too dangerous (and expensive) to play with. So nobody is really sure yet how these things perform, though I suspect we will find out in the near future because some folks have made some replicas in the 800 lbs range and are starting to do some preliminary tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdPyohqe7d0

On the longbow vs. armor thing. What you typically see are videos in which a super powerful 130 lb longbow is tried at ten feet against a 1.5mm thick munitions grade iron breastplate, which 'proves' longbows could pierce armor, then another video where an 80 lb longbow is shot at a 3mm thick tempered steel breastplate from 30 feet and the arrows all bounce of or shatter. Thus "proving" longbows couldn't pierce plate armor. Few people who do these tests really want to know the reality, and they generally serve to further muddy the waters. Hence the debate rages on into infinity, like so all our political debates....

G.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

- I am familiar with the musashi story of bokken, and my questions regarding bokken were largely to ascertain whether the general consensus was that the stories were more fanciful than not. I realize a bokken could kill, but my worries were it's effectiveness against weapons with blades, like axes, swords and the like.

Used properly, it could be very effective. White oak is strong, and could probably withstand a few blows from a katana, as a katana was made to slice...something that's hard to do to white oak. You'd have better luck breaking it with a heavier European blade made to crush and shatter. So it's not my first choice against someone with an actual sword, but it's not a bad choice, all things considered. If I'm a better swordsman, I'll probably manage to win.

...nevermind. For some reason it loaded a page that wasn't the last page, so this issue is probably finished. My bad.

[Galloglaich]

Sorry to nit-pick but European blades were not heavier than katana blades and were not made to crush and shatter.

G.

[Shademan]

Galloglaich, i think you just put this debate to rest

[Spiryt]

On the longbow vs. armor thing. What you typically see are videos in which a super powerful 130 lb longbow is tried at ten feet against a 1.5mm thick munitions grade iron breastplate, which 'proves' longbows could pierce armor, then another video where an 80 lb longbow is shot at a 3mm thick tempered steel breastplate from 30 feet and the arrows all bounce of or shatter. Thus "proving" longbows couldn't pierce plate armor. Few people who do these tests really want to know the reality, and they generally serve to further muddy the waters. Hence the debate rages on into infinity, like so all our political debates....

Because "Reality" isn't simple, obviously.

There were different breastplate shapes, material, quality, different arrows, better of worse archers, wind or not...

As for heaviest crossbows being only " barely" more powerful than heaviest bows, I wouldn't agree.

Of course even large crossbow built to combat that trend, would have much smaller draw and prod length compared to bows.

But still, 1200 pounds of draw weight would make up for it, that's the whole point.

As I mentioned, ~1000 pound steel prod crossbow could generate 180 J of initial energy... And shooting 80 g bolt, which means pretty much waste of energy, shooting relatively light bolt from powerful bow.

Not really achievable even with 170 pound of other scary bow that even Mark Stretton or whoever can shoot only two times for show.

With bigger velocity, that decreases slightly less rapidly, so this is quite different shooting, like Galloglaich mentioned.

[Spiryt]

Sorry to nit-pick but European blades were not heavier than katana blades and were not made to crush and shatter.

G.

They certainly were generally resisting impacts better, as they were vibrating more than more harmonically dead katanas, but they weren't really made for very serious crushing or whatever....

But again, it depends on sword - seriously guys, basic fact is that in early 14th century there were already many very varied design of sword in Europe.

And that's before individual qualities.

So obviously one sword could behave drastically different from another.

[Mike_G]

The 'lack of training' is another BIG myth. Crossbows were not weapons given to raw levies. Crossbowmen were highly paid specialists, often imported from far away. Genoa made a fortune exporting mercenaries across Europe and into the Middle East.

Nobody's saying there weren't veteran, well trained crossbowmen. We're saying that it takes years of practice to get good with a longbow, and less time to get good with a crossbow. The examination of the remains of the archers on the Mary Rose show the strain of years of stress placed on their bodies by that practice. It also requires a strong, well fed man to shoot a longbow. A hungry, tired crossbowman can still sight down the shaft and pull the lever.

Crossbows were expensive, much more expensive than longbows. In fact a cranequin (the most expensive spanning device for the strongest bows) alone was more expensive than a longbow.

A musket was probably more expensive than a longbow, and required smithing and moving parts and so on. The point is that it's easier to learn, since the technology supplies the strength and accuracy for you, rather than years of practice.

On crossbows vs. longbows. We all know of the famous battles where the longbow defeated the crossbow; Crecy, Agincourt, Poitiers. But these were all three cases where the French aristocracy threw caution, wisdom, and strategy to the wind. The genoese crossbowmen were positioned as an afterthought, in the worst possible locations, and used in adverse weather. In other encounters, such as between the Swiss and the Burgundians, the longbow did not fare as well.

Would you mind citing a battle or two? I trolled the net, and apart from the Battle of Morat, where the longbows were hastily deployed in defesne of the camp and caught by surprise, I can't find any mention of crossbows defeating longbows. Certainly no mention of a longbow/crossbow shootout.

I'm not denying it happened, but I've never heard of it. The loss of the archers at Morat seems no different from the losses in the Hundred Years War where archers were overrun before they could set up stakes.

Saying a crossbow is better than a longbow or vise versa is a bit like saying a machine gun is better than a mortar. The fact is both remain in wide use by modern militaries, because they have different roles.

Of course there were crossbows and crossbows. They ranged from light weapons which could be used by anybody, to very strong weapons which were dangerous to play with unless you knew what you were doing.

In fact, one of the main reasons we don't know for sure about crossbows is that almost nobody can make replicas of the real military grade types from the Renaissance. There are only a handful of people around the world today who can make a 1200 lb draw prod. There aren't many of them floating around, and the antiques are too dangerous (and expensive) to play with. So nobody is really sure yet how these things perform, though I suspect we will find out in the near future because some folks have made some replicas in the 800 lbs range and are starting to do some preliminary tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdPyohqe7d0

On the longbow vs. armor thing. What you typically see are videos in which a super powerful 130 lb longbow is tried at ten feet against a 1.5mm thick munitions grade iron breastplate, which 'proves' longbows could pierce armor, then another video where an 80 lb longbow is shot at a 3mm thick tempered steel breastplate from 30 feet and the arrows all bounce of or shatter. Thus "proving" longbows couldn't pierce plate armor. Few people who do these tests really want to know the reality, and they generally serve to further muddy the waters. Hence the debate rages on into infinity, like so all our political debates....

G.

I'm not arguing against the crossbow as a military weapon, and I more or less agree on its strengths, but I think the myth of armor piercing crossbows is as cliched and unrealistic as that of the invincible longbow.

In my own limited experience, it takes a good deal of practice to use a bow with anything like consistent accuracy, and you get tired quickly shooting a heavy bow. The crossbows I've used have been easy to get used to, very consistent, but slower to load.

I make no claim to being an expert with anything that doesn't eject brass when you shoot it, but I can see how one could extrapolate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, and I stand by my statement that I'd pick a crossbow for the new recruit, but pick a ten year longbow veteran over a similarly seasoned crossbowman.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Except that almost every battle where the Longbow was 'superior' to the crossbow we have a bunch of complete incompetents (suposedly) battling a superior defensive position (proven), have the crossbowmen fight on their own (and several times without all the equipment they normally use...which was proven several times, the French generals did not like their mercenary crossbowmen, they did more damage to the Genouese then the English actually in one of the battles...) against a well supported opponent.

All the big battles where the longbow wins against the crossbow are famous because in the end that war was LOST by the English and they had to make sure that for the home moral people did not think the king was a idiot and that he should be deposed.

Any battle where the English lost and they could not get away with claiming that they had a massive disadvantage was conveniently ignored and almost completely excised from histiry books.

Engeland was the first country to use a massive amount of propaganda as a weapon, none of the other countries in Europe did that on anywhere near the same scale (or at all in some cases).

We have 3 major wins, all three of them after carefull checking of the historical records show that if that people killed in said battles according to the English propaganda were actually killed then that France would not have had ANY males of royal blood left alive.
According to 'history' over two dozen princes of France were killed in those three battles... A dozen of them in one battle alone...

However the geanalogical listings of the royal families shows less then 30 male princes in the whole of France, including all the infants in that period...
And way less then the 12 were alive and in that part of France for the battle that claims to have killed 12 of them in one go...

So shall we say that they have a serious amount of exageration going here and leave it at that?

Have you ever read the book from Anne Curry? It is called 'Agincourt: A new History'

Try it and be surprised.

Also...why would the Saracens suddenly start using Crossbows or Frankish Bows as they called them if they were so useless as people seem to be claiming?
The saracens had composite bows, of equal power and range as longbows but after they faced the crusaders who had crossbows they started using these too to the point that crossbows started to be used more then composite bows...

P.s. Just for those who wonder...that Agincourt, a new history puts the numbers of the French at 12000 versus 9000 English...and the English had about 7000 longbowmen versus less then 20% of the French with crossbows...
That quantitative difference alone more then makes up for the differences.
Being outnumbered over 2 to 1 I am sure the crossbowmen had little chance of winning, especially given that they were attacking and the English were in a defended position...

Edit:

As for battles where the Crossbows carried the day, Battle of Yaffa from the crusades against Saladin.
2000 crossbowmen cut the Saracen army to ribbons, and guess who led them?
Richard the Lionheart, from Longbowcountry...
7000 light (i.e. armed with bows mostly) and heavy cavalry was the opposition.

[Brainfart]

Because "Reality" isn't simple, obviously.

There were different breastplate shapes, material, quality, different arrows, better of worse archers, wind or not...

As for heaviest crossbows being only " barely" more powerful than heaviest bows, I wouldn't agree.

Of course even large crossbow built to combat that trend, would have much smaller draw and prod length compared to bows.

But still, 1200 pounds of draw weight would make up for it, that's the whole point.

As I mentioned, ~1000 pound steel prod crossbow could generate 180 J of initial energy... And shooting 80 g bolt, which means pretty much waste of energy, shooting relatively light bolt from powerful bow.

Not really achievable even with 170 pound of other scary bow that even Mark Stretton or whoever can shoot only two times for show.

With bigger velocity, that decreases slightly less rapidly, so this is quite different shooting, like Galloglaich mentioned.

At range, that's a rather different story. From what I know, the bolt is a less rather less efficient projectile, both from the design of the pointy end and the general aerodynamic properties. So, while the crossbow could theoretically generate more power at the prod, by the time the projectile got there (assuming battlefield ranges) it'd bled off a large portion.

Sorry to nit-pick but European blades were not heavier than katana blades and were not made to crush and shatter.

G.

/sharpens knives

Arguing with katana plonkers is always fun.

[Galloglaich]

Nobody's saying there weren't veteran, well trained crossbowmen. We're saying that it takes years of practice to get good with a longbow, and less time to get good with a crossbow.

I think the considerable physical requirements of the longbow are often conflated with the skill / training requirements of both the longbow and the crossbow. Of course, just like there are bows and even longbows, and then there are the really powerful ones like on the Mary Rose that most people are typically talking about (which some people today call the "English Warbow"), with crossbows, there were simple yew prod crossbows which could be spanned by hand (and these, certainly, anyone could use) there were stirrup crossbows (steigreifarmbrust) which had composite bows (knottelholcz) and often required a belt-hook, there were windlass crossbows mostly used for sieges, and the really powerful cranequin type with spring-steel prods which appeared in the 15th Century, which because they didn't use a foot stirrup for spanning could be used from horseback.

Generally in these kinds of discussions we tend to talk about the most powerful longbows and the most powerful crossbows; in the latter case, it apparently took somebody who really knew what they were doing to use them because from the records which survive, soldiers using these weapons were paid double or triple what regular pikemen or spearmen were paid.

A musket was probably more expensive than a longbow, and required smithing and moving parts and so on. The point is that it's easier to learn, since the technology supplies the strength and accuracy for you, rather than years of practice.

Complex locks cost something but the matchlock arquebus of the 15th Century was fairly cheap, could be mass produced with the technology of the time in the sophisticated armsworks in places like Brescia (where the Beretta gun company was founded in 1536 when they sold 185 arquebus barrels to Venice for 296 ducats), Solingen, Milan, and various other towns in Southern Germany, the Rhineland and Northern Italy.

Would you mind citing a battle or two? I trolled the net, and apart from the Battle of Morat, where the longbows were hastily deployed in defense of the camp and caught by surprise,

Well... doesn't that have a familiar ring? Remind you of Agincourt perhaps? The excuses of terrain, preparedness, or even being run over by French Cavalry didn't matter did they it was still cited (over and over and over again) as proof of the superiority of the English Longbow over the "Continental" crossbow.

But I can cite some more specific examples. Crossbows and longbows fought on either side throughout the Burgundian wars, the Burgundians had adopted longbows in the early 14th Century and had also hired English longbowmen in small numbers for their battles with the Swiss Confederacy and the cities of Alsace and Lorraine. This is cited by Hans Delbruck in his histories, I don't have a copy handy right now though so I can't cite exact pages. It's also mentioned in the Osprey military books on this subject.

I can't find any mention of crossbows defeating longbows. Certainly no mention of a longbow/crossbow shootout.

I'm not denying it happened, but I've never heard of it. The loss of the archers at Morat seems no different from the losses in the Hundred Years War where archers were overrun before they could set up stakes.

One fairly typical specific example of an actual shootout between Swiss crossbowmen (and a few arquebusiers) and Burgundian longbowmen was at the Battle of Grandson in 1476, which was actually the predecessor of the Battle of Morat / Murtren. In fact Morat was really revenge from the Swiss for Charles the Bolds rather cruel massacre of their small garrison at Grandson. It was for that that he lost his life*.

Here is a website I found with a quick google search on the Battle of Grandson. I quote from their site,

As the Burgundians in the castle held of the attack there, an advanced party of gunners and crossbow men ran into a scouting group of Charles army. The fire from the early hand guns and crossbows drove off the Burgundian troops armed with longbows. The Burgundians retreated Westward out of the forest.

In skirmishes like that throughout the Burgundian wars, the Crossbow came out on top. Now this was because of a lot of other reasons; somehow the Swiss "generalship by committee" proved far more efficient than the centralized authority they opposed. One of the unique things about the the Swiss in all their was was they always seemed ready to go before the Hapsburgs or the Burgundians (or whoever) could react. They were tough, always seemed one step ahead and always ready to go to town hard core the second they saw their enemy. But also, and I think this is critical, the landscape where the Burgundian wars took place, mountains and dense forests with patches of rolling hills in between, was not ideal for the longbow which has it's range and rate of fire advantage in open country; but was better for the harder hitting, more accurate crossbows. And the Swiss took advantage of that.

I'm not arguing against the crossbow as a military weapon, and I more or less agree on its strengths, but I think the myth of armor piercing crossbows is as cliched and unrealistic as that of the invincible longbow.

I'm not saying that crossbows necessarily pierced armor all that often, I actually agree with you I think that does tend to get exaggerated just like with the longbows and with the early firearms, none of which seemed to be that good at armor piercing in the day; but I am saying that in the records, letters, and commentaries from this period, it is the crossbow that everyone feared, it was the crossbow (both the 'largo' and 'piccolo' variants) for which the Milanese proofed their armor.

In my own limited experience, it takes a good deal of practice to use a bow with anything like consistent accuracy, and you get tired quickly shooting a heavy bow. The crossbows I've used have been easy to get used to, very consistent, but slower to load.

Yes, but these are (I'm assuming) either modern hunting crossbows or low-power replicas. Or do you have experience with crossbows which you need a jack or a windlass to span?

I make no claim to being an expert with anything that doesn't eject brass when you shoot it, but I can see how one could extrapolate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, and I stand by my statement that I'd pick a crossbow for the new recruit, but pick a ten year longbow veteran over a similarly seasoned crossbowman.

I think it depends on the terrain, on the leadership, on the type of troops and a lot of other factors. Kind of like if I were going to choose between 81 mm mortars and FN MAGs as support weapons for my rifle company.

G.


* Charles the Bold thought he was going to get revenge against the Swiss for losing all his cannon and his golden bathtub, but instead he lost his life.

[fusilier]

Crossbows could be very powerful. The shorter bow also meant that more energy was imparted directly onto the bolt, rather than wasted in accelerating the tips of the bow.

It is often claimed that the crossbow was more accurate, but I've heard good arguments to the opposite. The more powerful draw force was delivered abruptly to the bolt, and the bolt was "slapped" into flight. Whereas the archer with a bow released his arrow with more control and precision. The maximum range of a crossbow bolt was about 400 yards, but it lost most of it's power to aerodynamic drag after about 150 yards. The crossbowman does have the advantage of taking his time aiming, but I don't know how much of an effect that would have in a pitched battle. It was also easier for him to take cover and still use his weapon.

The higher rate of fire on a longbow or composite bow, cannot be sustained indefinitely, due to fatigue - although might be useful if rapid fire is reserved for a critical moment.

The Venetians were impressed enough with recurved composite bows to use them in conjunction with crossbows (at least for a while).

I agree with most of what Galloglaich has to say. However, I would point out that the crossbow didn't displace the bow, and was itself displaced by firearms (the main advantage of an arquebus over a crossbow appears to be robustness). The bow primarily seemed to die out from requiring very experienced personnel to use and make. Nonetheless, crossbows were clearly effective weapons, when fielded appropriately. The *superiority* of one or the other, has probably been exaggerated.

[Yora]

A crossbow is as accurate as it is built. A bow is only as accurate as the shoters skill.
Which would support the view that bows are better when used by an expert.

[Spiryt]

From what I know, the bolt is a less rather less efficient projectile, both from the design of the pointy end and the general aerodynamic properties. So, while the crossbow could theoretically generate more power at the prod, by the time the projectile got there (assuming battlefield ranges) it'd bled off a large portion.

Actually, as I pointed out before, shorter, thicker bolt actually loses velocity less rapidly, due to aerodynamics and lesser vibrations in the air.

From what I heard, arrow behaves "better" in terms of steep arch shooting, and it was standard bow tactics.

But generally bolt can be send way further at flat trajectory.

A crossbow is as accurate as it is built. A bow is only as accurate as the shoters skill.

Not sure what you mean - yes, bow needs way more skill and concentration at short moment to be accurate at all, but both bow and crossbow can be less or more accurate, depending on their construction.

Bow also can be only as accurate as it's built... If it generates to much vibration, arms are short, too wide, etc etc, it won't be accurate at all too...

And you can shot from both better of worse, depending on your skill.

[Psyx]

That is not to say the longbow was ineffective. And it was in fact used in Europe outside of England. But it was not the uberweapon that most people think and it was not miles ahead of the crossbow. If it was, the English would have taken over Europe.

That's not a viable claim. You're mixing sociological and strategic issues with hardware specs. The two have nothing to do with each other.

At long range, the longbow is an indirect shot weapon. Crossbows shoot in a flatter trajectory and were a direct-shot weapon.

Both are subject to gravity. Which shoots more levelly is a matter purely of velocity and any lift generated by the projectile. And whereas a crossbow looses a lot of velocity, shooting in an arc means you have gravity working on your side when it comes to impact velocity.

Crossbows were more accurate

They are? Given the better aerodynamic qualities of a decent arrow, I don't see that there should be much difference, giving good training. After all: We've been hunting small game with bows for a very long time. I'm not an archer, though.

The rate of fire issue is largely a myth. The crossbow was deployed behind a pavise and typically two or even three weapons were used. A longbowman might be able to get 10 arrows a minute, whereas a lone crossbowman can only manage 4-6 bolts per minute.

Battlefield crossbows comparable in power to longbows with a single man using? A shot every 10 seconds using a mechanical assist to arm the bow? Really? How?

Even if the rate of fire is 7 compared to 10; that's enough. Put down twice as much equally (on battlefield scale) accurate ammunition as your foe and you win. Firepower's effectiveness has been shown to be squared, not linear; and that advantage equates to a massive one.

All the big battles where the longbow wins against the crossbow are famous because in the end that war was LOST by the English and they had to make sure that for the home moral people did not think the king was a idiot and that he should be deposed.

Hundred year war - clue is in the name. The great three battles were massive victories long before the French started listening to a mad French teenager and kicked the English out of their own country. It wan't just in England that these battles were famous: They shook Europe.

Try it and be surprised.

It's also very contentious. There are equally well researched books that go far the other way, too. It's quite an extreme view. I guess that helps sell books, though...

P.s. Just for those who wonder...that Agincourt, a new history puts the numbers of the French at 12000 versus 9000 English...

A ratio that would not have resulted in the upset across Europe that it did have, and is the most extreme most English:least French ratio that I've ever seen put forward.

[Matthew]

The Venetians were impressed enough with recurved composite bows to use them in conjunction with crossbows (at least for a while).

On the same subject, it is worth knowing that in Richard the Lionheart's army there was a mixture of crossbowmen, bowmen, and perhaps most interestingly Welsh long bowmen. There is probably other evidence for the latter, but the passage that springs to mind is the "archery duel" between a Welshman and a Saracen reported in the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi:

One day the slingers and archers of both armies, and all those skilled in hurling missiles, were challenging one another on both sides, and discharged their weapons for exercise. When the rest had departed from the field in their turns, a Parthian and a Welchman began to aim their bows at one another in a hostile manner, and discharge them so as to strike with all their might. But the Welchman, aware of his foe’s intention, repaid like for like; on which the Parthian, making a truce, approached him, and when within hearing, began a parley. ‘Of what country are you,’ said he, ‘and by what name may I be pleased to know you? I see you are a good bowman, and in order that you may be more inclined to tell me, I am a Parthian by nation, brought up from childhood in the art of shooting, and my name is Grammahyr, of good reputation amongst my people for deeds of renown, and well known for my victories.’ The Welchman told his name and nation. ‘Let us prove,’ said the Parthian, ‘which is the best bowman by each taking an arrow, and aiming them against one another from our bows. You shall stand still first and I will aim an arrow at you, and afterwards you shall shoot in a like manner at me.’ The Welchman agreed. The Parthian, having fitted his arrow, and parting his feet as the art required, with his hands stretched asunder, and his eyes fixed on the mark,

‘’Lets fly the arrow, failing of its aim.’’

The Welchman, unhurt, demanded the fulfilment of the aforesaid condition. ‘I will not agree’ said the Parthian; ‘but you must stand another shot, and then have two at me.’ The Welchman replied, ‘You do not stand by your agreement, nor observe the condition you yourself dictated; and if you will not stand, although I may delay it for a time, as I may best be able, God will take revenge on you according to His will, for your treachery; ‘and he had scarced finished speaking, when in a twinkling of an eye he smote the Turk with his arrow in the breast, as he was selecting an arrow from his quiver to suit his purpose, and the weapon, meeting with no obstacle, came out at the back, having pierced the Turk’s body; upon which he said to the Turk, ‘You stood not by your agreement, nor I by my word.’ Animated by these and the like successes, the Christians thought they should preserve themselves for good fortune by bearing all their misfortunes with more cheerful faith and more fervent hope.

The genius of the English long bow was not as a "super weapon", but in the sheer numbers employed and their tactical deployment in combination with other elements. That is not to say the long bow was not a powerful bow with a relatively fast shooting rate, just that it is "horses for courses".