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

[Psyx]

"and if the target is packed, lightly armed infantry, they can be annihilated by archery."

And if it's dispersed, then it's time for the cavalry...

[Galloglaich]

With all due respect to the Scotts at Falkirk, they were not professional infantry and were not using established pike square techniques at that point, they were still very much experimenting with weapons and tactics. Nor did they have a lot of heavy crossbows. The thing is longbows were tried against the Swiss multiple times throughout the Burgundian wars and were never successful. My personal opinion is as I said before, it's a matter of terrain. In open country, the longbow has an edge, in the forests and hedgerows, apparently the crossbow did.

As for the efficacy of the descending area attacks vs. the direct pinpoint attack, keep in mind, while they are indirect the way mortars are, these are not exploding munitions. Their targets are almost all wearing helmets (which was the most ubiquitous type of armor) and many of them were indeed wearing some kind of armor on their upper bodies. Most of the helmets were something like this:



As for 'volley fire', my understanding is that this is what the Hussites did to break up cavalry charges, they waited until the last minute and opened fire.

As for accuracy of the arquebus vs. the crossbow, all of my sources including Alan Williams said that the crossbow had about three or four times the effective accurate range of the arquebus (about 150-200 meters). I assume of course he means the heaviest 'arbalest' types though he doesn't specify that.

But the bottom line is, these are my opinions basically, we don't have proof for any of this and for some reason, the longbow is one of those weapons which inspires a lot of passion among people. While we have some videos etc. to go on with the longbow, we really don't know a lot of hard data about the military grade crossbows or heavy arbalests.

I don't know what the rate of shots per minute is with a cranequin spanned crossbow, I've never seen anybody try it because there are probably only a dozen or two functional cranequin spanned crossbows in the world. It would be nice if somebody did it! I'd especially like to see a team trying this.

I also don't know what the velocity or equivalent of 'muzzle energy' of a heavy arbalest is. We do know for a recurve and for a longbow and for all the early firearms, but i can't even find a consensus on how heavy the crossbow bolts were, let alone a test with a 1000 or 1200 lb draw weapon.

I do not know what the effective strait-line range is for the crossbow either, Alan Williams says it's about 150 - 200 meters, so do a couple of other writers, but I can't find any actual testing evidence to verify that.


All the evidence I do have is the period literature and records, and these indicated that the people in Continental Europe felt the heaviest crossbows had longer effective direct shot range than any bow, that they were considered the greatest threat to armor until the arrival of muskets, and that they were the most sought after weapon for the European battlefield. This is what it says in Delbruck and the serious military historians, until I have more data available I'm basing my opinion on that.

G.

[valadil]

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.

I don't have numbers to back this up, only observations. An arrow's terminal velocity is lower than its speed when it leaves the bow. Gravity working for you isn't going to help all that much.

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.

There's a lot of technique that you can screw up when firing a bow that does not apply to a crossbow. In particular, consider the arm holding the bow. As you pull the string, that arm is pulled up in towards your body. The tension on the bow helps hold your arm up. When you release, the inclination is to drop the arm, but doing so will ruin your shot. Even if you hold your arm up correctly there will usually be some amount of movement affecting the arrow as it leaves the bow.

Now consider a crossbow. Your arm is no longer subject to that tension. Instead its just the crossbow holding that. When you fire, there's no sudden release of tension from your arm, so there's no movement on your part.

There's a lot of ways to screw up shooting a bow, but a crossbow is nearly point and click. As it is subject to fewer user based inconsistencies, the crossbow comes out ahead on accuracy.

[Mike_G]

With all due respect to the Scotts at Falkirk, they were not professional infantry and were not using established pike square techniques at that point, they were still very much experimenting with weapons and tactics.

These were veteran troops who'd fought under Wallace before, and beaten the English before. They held against the cavalry charge early in the battle, and stood up well against the English infantry. It wasn't until the archery barrage that they faltered, being poorly armored in an immobile formation without missile or cavalry support of their own.

They were good troops, they'd proven it, but they were unwilling to stand in a crowd under a rain of arrows.

As for the efficacy of the descending area attacks vs. the direct pinpoint attack, keep in mind, while they are indirect the way mortars are, these are not exploding munitions. Their targets are almost all wearing helmets (which was the most ubiquitous type of armor) and many of them were indeed wearing some kind of armor on their upper bodies. Most of the helmets were something like this:

Descending fire doesn't drop straight down. Arrows fall at around 45 degrees, or less if the range isn't max. More chance of being hit in the body or legs than the top of the head. The bill probably protected you from being hit in the face with a falling arrow, but not from a shaft in the guts.

We're splitting hairs here. The longbow was a good weapon, it did help win a number of battle for the English. Yes, it has a few too many fanboys who think it can drill through Maximillian plate at 200 yards, but the backlash is equally wrong. It was a fine weapon, and a company of good bowmen was worth quite a bit in the hands of s decent commander.

The physical requirements and training time made it a difficult weapon to field if your kingdom wasn't set up for it. All archery based armies came from areas where it was a cultural skill. The Mongols, the Parthians, the mandated training by the English for centuries. You didn't just decide to recruit archers and turn new troops into decent archers.

The crossbow gets its power and accuracy from its mechanical design, not the brawn and instinct of its user. You can pick it up and be a reasonable threat in a short time. I could hit the target reliably within less than an hour. Archery takes a lot of practice to get consistent.

[Matthew]

The physical requirements and training time made it a difficult weapon to field if your kingdom wasn't set up for it. All archery based armies came from areas where it was a cultural skill. The Mongols, the Parthians, the mandated training by the English for centuries. You didn't just decide to recruit archers and turn new troops into decent archers.

The crossbow gets its power and accuracy from its mechanical design, not the brawn and instinct of its user. You can pick it up and be a reasonable threat in a short time. I could hit the target reliably within less than an hour. Archery takes a lot of practice to get consistent.

Indeed. There is no doubt in my mind that training a long bowman to shoot a decent poundage requires greater investment of time and resources than training a crossbowman to do the same, but we are prone to exaggerate the difference. For the former we are probably talking more months than the latter, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking it takes years and years to learn to handle a bow either; modern long bow enthusiasts may not have the same skill level as their forebears, but we are talking months, not years, for them to acquire the strength and skill to use the higher weight long bows. It might be suitable to be talking in terms of weeks versus months in comparing the crossbow and long bow (in the sense of acquiring the strength and skill to keep up the expected shooting rate).

Of course, handling the weapon is only part of the profession. Discipline and confidence need to be instilled in them, amongst other things, and participation on the battlefield is only ever going to consume a very small amount of time during their term of service. So, when we are comparing professional mercenary crossbowmen to city militia types, we are necessarily talking about more than just the handling of the weapon.

[HenryHankovitch]

It was effective enough against the French at Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy.

The French weren't using pike squares. As a point of fact, if the French had fielded their knights as infantry, and advanced them along with their crossbowmen in something vaguely approximating a late-medieval pike formation, they would almost certainly have defeated the English.

Th Scots at Falkirk in 1298 held off cavalry but were devastated by archery, as were the Welsh spearmen at Maes Moydog in 1295.

The Scots at Falkirk didn't have any significant quantity of archers/crossbowmen. Also relevant was the fact that their hedgehog formation was (as most pike formations of that earlier period) an essentially ad hoc formation of soldiers who could not have advanced or maneuvered as a unit.

I can't speak for the details of Maes Moydog.

Combined arms works nicely, but that's not the argument. the argument is that against tight formations, rapid longbow fire is plenty accurate enough, and if the target is packed, lightly armed infantry, they can be annihilated by archery.

Combined arms IS the argument. Unless your opponent is a moron--which, admittedly, happens painfully often in history--battles cannot simply be reduced to a rock-paper-scissors system of "my archery beats your infantry, your cavalry beats my archery, unless it's English then the archers always win, always."

Missile fire is a desirable counter to heavy infantry like pike formations. But, if your opponent is not an idiot, and he is fielding his own bowmen properly, you can't depend on your archers--no matter how good--to be able to out-perform their own archers sufficiently to win the battle all by themselves. Remember, at Crecy a large part of the French army's stupidity was in poorly utilizing their own crossbowmen. English archers aren't invulnerable; even attacking from downhill, professional crossbowmen from behind pavises could have effectively countered the essentially unprotected bowmen.

And the specific point WRT to the English warbow was that it was a missile weapon that was unsustainable. By the 1500s or so, we aren't talking about mindblowingly awesome English archers, because they aren't around any more.

[Psyx]

My personal opinion is as I said before, it's a matter of terrain. In open country, the longbow has an edge, in the forests and hedgerows, apparently the crossbow did.

Which does sound quite reasonable. Logically; the lighter arrows are more easily deflected by light brush, and the overhead cover is going to reduce range heavily because it stops the archers... arching. and if targets are taking to cover and fighting from it - keeping down while reloading - then rate of fire becomes much less tactically useful.

As for the efficacy of the descending area attacks vs. the direct pinpoint attack, keep in mind, while they are indirect the way mortars are, these are not exploding munitions.

On the other hand; the toughest part of plate harness and horse armour to penetrate is the front...

I really don't swallow that indirect fire is any less effective. It's not inaccurate, that helmet brim is going to protect against about 5% of body hits by area, and nicely deflect a few of those into shoulders, it hits the backs of horses, it's going to come down more easily over any shields or pavise, the trajectory helps retain velocity, and it results in a whole formation that is struck and disordered, rather than a front two ranks that get turned to pin cushions while everyone else stands safe [having friends die when you can't even see the enemy yet is not good for morale].

As for accuracy of the arquebus vs. the crossbow, all of my sources including Alan Williams said that the crossbow had about three or four times the effective accurate range of the arquebus (about 150-200 meters). I assume of course he means the heaviest 'arbalest' types though he doesn't specify that.

I don't know much about arquebus much, but musket fire was considered accurate en masse to 100m; or 200m in the hands of a decent skirmisher.

All the evidence I do have is the period literature and records, and these indicated that the people in Continental Europe felt the heaviest crossbows had longer effective direct shot range than any bow, that they were considered the greatest threat to armor until the arrival of muskets

I don't disagree. But given a fairly narrow range advantage, perhaps a substantial penetration advantage at close range, decreasing over range, and a 10:1 rate of fire disadvantage, I'd give the edge in raw fire-power to the Longbow in open battle. Its lever action versus sharps rifles in many ways.

I'm not discounting the advantages of the crossbow, and the training requirements aren't even up for any kind of debate.

There's a lot of technique that you can screw up when firing a bow that does not apply to a crossbow.

There is; but we're talking about trained professionals here. Manual gearboxes and clutches are awkward with a lot to 'go wrong' but far more effective in the hands of a competent driver than an automatic one, for example. So it's a moot point.

I don't have numbers to back this up, only observations. An arrow's terminal velocity is lower than its speed when it leaves the bow. Gravity working for you isn't going to help all that much.

It's going to be faster than the crossbow's, because as well as better retaining initial velocity, the arrow is accelerating downwards at 10m/s^2.
I suspect that even though the powerful crossbow out-ranges the longbow and out-penetrates it at short range, that the longbow's penetration holds up better at long range.

[Spiryt]

Wait so from "longbow is superior" argument we've gone to "crossbow is superior" argument?

Anyway:

It's going to be faster than the crossbow's, because as well as better retaining initial velocity, the arrow is accelerating downwards at 10m/s^2.

As I mentioned few times, bolt is probably better at retaining it's velocity in most cases.

It's probably completely unaerodynamic and unbalanced for steep arch shooting, but it's different matter.

. It's not inaccurate, that helmet brim is going to protect against about 5% of body hits by area

Actually, it's going to protect way more. Kettle hat used right way (kept at right angle) is going to cover nice part of silhouette, as well as legs of guy behind you... As well as shields will, but that's not about comparing defensive equipment.

Anyway, well drilled tight formations aren't so vulnerable at all, because of it all, especially with shields.

And indirect fire is inaccurate. Basically with long time of flight, wind, and general aiming by the arc, slight change in the angle of shoot will give meters of change in the destination of arrow.

front two ranks that get turned to pin cushions while everyone else stands safe [having friends die when you can't even see the enemy yet is not good for morale]

Even in the age of musket one volley rarely was turning whole ranks into dead meat, simply ranged weapons of old aren't as effective.

There would be tons of misses, ground hit, deflections, etc.

[Deadmeat.GW]

I guess what I've been trying to explain about crossbows vs. longbows vs. firearms, is that while crossbows had a shorter overall range, they had a longer effective direct shot range at which they could target an individual human (or human on a horse) target than longbows. Crossbows could also be shot in an arc but only a very shallow arc.

So wherever you want to put the number for longbows, 50 yards, maybe 100 yards to target an individual human, beyond that you can only really use it for indirect shots like a mortar. The really heavy crossbows could apparently shoot accurately 150 to 200 yards. So lets say your longbow is shooting 8 to 10 shots per minute, but they are shooting at an area. The way they trained was shooting at a 30' sheet. So most of these arrows are actually going to miss. The Crossbow by contrast is getting maybe 6 shots a minute, but they are all aimed, most (or more at any rate) are going to hit.

I think this is what the 15th and 16th Century sources meant when they said crossbows were more accurate.

It was somewhat similar for early firearms which also did not have the ballistic arc ability that a longbow or recurve bow had, but shot in a strait line. But early firearms were not very accurate so they shot in volleys to make up for it; still something like area fire but more concentrated so again, a higher percentage of hits per round going downrange.


As a result of these dichotomies, the crossbow proved more useful at short to medium ranges. The longbow was good at point blank range or long range. The handgonne or arquebus was good at point blank to medium range.

So depending on the terrain, that will tell you which weapon is more useful. In a really open terrain like at Agincourt, the longbow is the more useful weapon. In a closer terrain like at Grandson or Morat, the crossbow and the handgonne are more useful (also because of the overhead cover of forests, which makes the arcing shots of the longbow less effective)

Does that make sense?

G.

Actually the light crossbows did that range, the heavy crossbows were fired for effect at 300 to 400 yards.
And could reach out to 500 to 600 yards (and be completely ineffectual from what I see the saracens claim when they used them).

[fusilier]

Some more comments on crossbows etc.

A well made arquebus, carefully and properly loaded, in the hands of a skilled shooter could probably hit individual targets out to over 100m, and be plenty useful against massed targets at longer ranges. A rifled one (and rifles did exist by 1500) would be even better. But that's not going to be your average soldier, or your average arquebus.

I suspect that "mass produced" crossbows would suffer similarly. War bolts could apparently be pretty crudely made, which did not aid in accuracy (the main concern being that they don't shatter when fired). However, as with many historical artifacts, the common variety rarely come down to us. Instead we are left with the finely made examples, typically destined for nobility and the wealthy, and probably some unusual examples of ordnance (like siege crossbows), that were maintained for whatever reason. This may skew our understanding of what was typical, or what could be expected from a common variety weapon.

From what I have read (which may indeed be flawed, as it is limited), price wise arquebuses and crossbows were about on par. The amount of time to train a soldier was roughly the same. But arquebuses did displace crossbows, even at sea, where matchlocks could be rather annoying. I find it hard to believe that if crossbows had a significant edge in accuracy over arquebuses, that arquebuses still would have replaced them. Although there may be other factors involved.

@Galloglaich: You're right about volleys, why exactly tactics changed only to come back to volleys again is not clear to me. Clearly they were experimenting with new technology.

[Spiryt]

Generally, yes muskets and arquebuses were taking over crossbows in battles.
Despite differences, "basic" use were roughly similar - powerful, low rate of fire, point and shoot weapons, so less useful one was being overthrown trough the 16th century.

Conquistadors were using crossbow and guns at the same time, though, for example.

They had obvious differences, which may be often troublesome - people talk about accuracy and stuff, forgetting that the manner whole use would be very important - crossbow may be a bit awkward with reload, and longbow with it's
not compact dimensions and stuff, but doing all stuff to reload an arquebus, keeping your match ignited.... Not very comfortable thing to do in battle.

And crossbows were actually more expensive than decent guns, AFAIK.

And still quite a bit more accurate.

A well made arquebus, carefully and properly loaded, in the hands of a skilled shooter could probably hit individual targets out to over 100m, and be plenty useful against massed targets at longer ranges.

Actually, sources tell us about quite horrible inaccuracy - which is hard to be explained only by weapons itself from a lack of data, of course, but still accuracy was poor, at least in battles.

[fusilier]

Actually, sources tell us about quite horrible inaccuracy - which is hard to be explained only by weapons itself from a lack of data, of course, but still accuracy was poor, at least in battles.

Yes, but my point was that in battles they weren't using the finely made hunting arquebuses. And it's likely that in battle your average crossbowman wasn't using a finely made hunting crossbow either.

I don't know about horrible accuracy (unless you are comparing them to modern weapons). And it's important not to confuse an arquebus with it's predecessors (various handgonnes). Also, if I recall correctly, early arquebuses may have been held against the breastbone, instead of the shoulder. Once arquebusiers starting holding the weapon against the shoulder (like a crossbow), then I would imagine that they started to fair pretty well in terms of accuracy when compared to the weapons that they eventually replaced. The only difference at that point is the attention that must be paid to a matchlock when pulling the trigger, which might prevent a snap shot.

Clearly arquebuses didn't immediately replace crossbows, but they do seem to have done so fairly completely by the time that muskets were being introduced. Early arquebuses may have indeed have been significantly less accurate than crossbows, but by the time they reached their final form (before 1500) they were probably much closer to par.

From what I know, an average arquebus and an average crossbow were about the same in almost every respect (cost, accuracy, range), with the arquebus being more robust and making a better club when it came down to it. I've spelled out my suspicions (which are only just suspicions) that most of what has survived can skew our perceptions. And when it comes to period sources, they can often favor tradition over new-fangled devices -- the Pike was generally considered the more *appropriate* weapon with a classic pedigree, but that didn't stop pikes eventually being completely replaced by muskets. If on the otherhand, crossbows were significantly better, but also significantly more expensive than arquebuses, there may be an argument there, but that doesn't conform to what I've read about them.

[Spiryt]

From what I know, an average arquebus and an average crossbow were about the same in almost every respect (cost, accuracy, range), with the arquebus being more robust and making a better club when it came down to it.

I don't think that they can be compared like that, because they're well... very different.

Different projectile, with different ballistics, cost would depend on may factors, from quality of wood to ergonomics. Effect of impact on wood, metal armor, cloth armor, flesh, would be drastically different too, and such "details" would have great influence on decisions which weapon to use.

Generally, I feel that crossbow may be still "simplest", or rather most reliable range weapon - of course, you can do many things to screw the shot (like unsymmetrical drawing the string for example), but generally accuracy would be quite consistent.

In case of guns, powder was put into gun manually each time. It could be easily affected by weather. In short, each load way more often than not, especially in battlefield conditions, would propel bullet with different velocity.
Results are obvious.

Also, recoil connected with relatively low velocity, and quite long barrels could affect the trajectory.

That's what I heard at least - while in modern guns effect of recoil on trajectory of bullet which caused it is minimal, AFAIK, it would be worse back then.

"Inertness" of shot would be another problem - especially in stressful conditions, badly set match could cause that time between "firing" and actual shot could be quite long.

All those can be corrected by good, experienced shooter, of course, but those are occurrences, that cause that shooting muskets and arquebuses would be quite different (no matter if "worse" or "better") than shooting crossbow.

[ZeltArruin]

I have a question about shields, and it is a simple one. With a not tower shield, how are you supposed to defend your leg on your shield side? I have tried many things, but given that I am mostly making stuff up when I fight and that I am in single combat skews my answers.

[Spiryt]

I have a question about shields, and it is a simple one. With a not tower shield, how are you supposed to defend your leg on your shield side? I have tried many things, but given that I am mostly making stuff up when I fight and that I am in single combat skews my answers.

I would say, that given to geometric reason, punishing his arm when he tries to reach your leg is quite obvious option, but let's wait for more experienced people.

[fusilier]

I don't think that they can be compared like that, because they're well... very different.

Actually, crossbows and arquebuses fill the same niche: simple projectile weapons that are easily learned by common soldiers. So a comparison at that level is really appropriate when we are talking about why one gave way to the other. They really had the same battlefield function, and in time periods like the late 15th - early 16th century they are often referenced together.

It's my opinion that the bow fell into a related but different niche than the crossbow and arquebus, and that's why comparisons to it are somewhat more muddled.

Generally, I feel that crossbow may be still "simplest", or rather most reliable range weapon - of course, you can do many things to screw the shot (like unsymmetrical drawing the string for example), but generally accuracy would be quite consistent.

In case of guns, powder was put into gun manually each time. It could be easily affected by weather. In short, each load way more often than not, especially in battlefield conditions, would propel bullet with different velocity.
Results are obvious.

But Crossbows have another set of problems that they can face. Moisture can be detrimental to a crossbow, although most in the later period had metal bows so they were probably better off than a bow. Atmospheric conditions and wear can affect the cord (and therefore the tension). The various winding mechanisms can be delicate and awkward to use especially when being jostled about in tight formation. Conversely, there is very little on an arquebus to wear out, or be affected by weather conditions (yes the matchcord must be kept dry, but I don't think getting crossbow cords soaked is such a good idea either). Variability in powder is an issue, but unless some disaster has befallen your powder supply, the variations aren't going to have much effect in battlefield conditions. [A side note, I believe that during the great siege of Malta, crossbows were issued when powder was in short supply, or possibly for night-actions.]

"Inertness" of shot would be another problem - especially in stressful conditions, badly set match could cause that time between "firing" and actual shot could be quite long.

Yeah that's what I tried to say earlier: in the case of most matchlocks, it's not a simple matter of pulling the trigger, like on a crossbow. The trigger must be pulled without too much speed, as it's apparently possible to smother the matchcord in the powder. Even when it does ignite, there can be a noticeable delay between introducing the matchcord to the pan, and the gun firing. It is certainly a more finicky ignition system.

[Storm Bringer]

@Galloglaich: You're right about volleys, why exactly tactics changed only to come back to volleys again is not clear to me. Clearly they were experimenting with new technology.

actually, I can explain that one:

the answer runs somthing like this: for a long time, fire by rank or platoon firing was the 'textbook' answer, which all nations trained their regulars to do, when advancing over a open terrain agianst another formed body of infantry, as a prelude to a bayonet charge.

however, at times, the rolling fire of platoon fire was not what the tactical situation called for, and the combined crushing power of a mass volley was felt to be more useful.

also, extended firefights were bad for unit cohesion. eyewitness reports say that structured platoon fire generally only lasted a few volleys under fire before it broke down and everyone just loaded and shot as fast as he could. hidden behind huge clouds of smoke, the troops could only guess as to what thier fire was doing to their foe, but had a clear idea what the foes fire was doing to them. two lines of troops firing at each other rapidly became very ragged and disordered.


thus, officers would choose to fire mass volleys for specific situations. For example, a unit attacking cannon would only pause to fire one volley before getting stuck in with the bayonet, trying to out-shoot cannon within cannister range was clearly suicide. the british, in thier reverse slope defenese doctrine, would meet an advancing french column with a single volley, then charge home though thier own gunsmoke. the french would, more often than not, recoil and break from this double shock. British officers blame the troops at New Orleans for stopping and returning fire rather than pressing home with the bayonet (this lead to several british assault parties over 19th century being sent into the attack with unloaded weapons, to force the troops into melee).



Once breech loading weapons became common, the speed of the volleys picked up to the point where it was worth doing all the time.

[fusilier]

actually, I can explain that one:
. . .

Thanks Storm Bringer, but the time period I'm talking about is a bit earlier. It appears that in the 1500s the tactics switched from lining up and firing volleys, to continuous rolling fire - perhaps it had to do with both improvements in accuracy and range, and maybe even faster loading times and more available gunpowder. In the early 1600s the shock value of volleys came back, with volleys from formations 3 or 4 ranks deep reserving the fire until very close.

Not that the earlier formations wouldn't give a salvo when the enemy was close, but that a large proportion of the troops would be in a position where they couldn't fire (being in the rear ranks).

You are right that in the later period 18th-19th century that different styles of firing were preferred depending upon the situation. Fire by company, fire by files -> fire at will, could be used, with volleys reserved for shock value at very close ranges. Prussian manuals claimed that volleys should not be delivered until the soldiers' bayonets could touch their opponents' bayonets!

[Karoht]

I have a question about shields, and it is a simple one. With a not tower shield, how are you supposed to defend your leg on your shield side? I have tried many things, but given that I am mostly making stuff up when I fight and that I am in single combat skews my answers.

3 options. I'll assume you are holding a sword with said shield in all cases. I'll also assume no armor on legs.
A-Move your leg. Voiding is almost always your best method of defense. Step backwards, or back and to the opposite side of the blow. So if the blow is aimed at your left leg, step back and to the right, about a 45 degree angle.
B-Even with a buckler I can reach low enough to defend my knee (though this would probably be a poor idea with a buckler) to give you an idea of reach, though with your arm that extended you probably won't stop a very strong blow. My heater shield will usually drop low enough to protect my upper shin. If the blow is going to hit my ankle or foot, see option A. Typically option A is ideal any time the weapon is aiming for any part of your body below the waist, rather than waisting the movement of your shield or weapon to guard that low.
C-Low guard with weapon braced against the back of shield (sword points at the opponents ankle. Even with a small heater, this will guard will protect your upper body with the shield, and your lower body with the low guard of weapon. You essentially extend the shield by doing so. The most you should have to do to defend your leg is turn your body or sword, but if you have that kind of mobility, see option A. In single combat, I take this guard all the time if I'm up against an opponent I've never fought before, as it is very general an non-offensive. If I know them or have had time to watch them, I'm usually in a center guard or modified center guard.

Last point. In my fight group I have a lot of people who enjoy trying to score points by aiming for the leg. To the point where, in a match of first person to 3 points, sometimes all 3 blows are to the leg. If someone wants to come out the gate slashing away at your legs, back up and take a high guard or plant and take a center guard. Center guard will give you better reach (approx 90 degree angle on a thrust VS 45 degree angle thrust at your thigh = superior range, weapon and arm length not withstanding), and High Guard will give you a better position to strike the upper body from.


I fought with a Norman Teardrop shield once, not having to work as hard to defend my legs really made me lazy. Probably awesome in rank and file formation fighting, but not so much in single target or non-formation melee.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks Storm Bringer, but the time period I'm talking about is a bit earlier. It appears that in the 1500s the tactics switched from lining up and firing volleys, to continuous rolling fire - perhaps it had to do with both improvements in accuracy and range, and maybe even faster loading times and more available gunpowder. In the early 1600s the shock value of volleys came back, with volleys from formations 3 or 4 ranks deep reserving the fire until very close.

Not that the earlier formations wouldn't give a salvo when the enemy was close, but that a large proportion of the troops would be in a position where they couldn't fire (being in the rear ranks).

You are right that in the later period 18th-19th century that different styles of firing were preferred depending upon the situation. Fire by company, fire by files -> fire at will, could be used, with volleys reserved for shock value at very close ranges. Prussian manuals claimed that volleys should not be delivered until the soldiers' bayonets could touch their opponents' bayonets!

hmm, not sure. I could talk out of my arse, but i'd be lying if i claimed that i knew.

what proportion of troops were musket armed at that point? I was under the impression that until the late 1600's, the majority of soldiers were still equipped for melee. maybe changes in the numbers of muskets led to a change of tactics (i.e. when the oppent is mostly armed with muskets and uses pikes only for anti-cav duty, then thier is less call for emergency fire to break an incoming charge, meaning you can afford to volley)

[fusilier]

hmm, not sure. I could talk out of my arse, but i'd be lying if i claimed that i knew.

what proportion of troops were musket armed at that point? I was under the impression that until the late 1600's, the majority of soldiers were still equipped for melee. maybe changes in the numbers of muskets led to a change of tactics (i.e. when the oppent is mostly armed with muskets and uses pikes only for anti-cav duty, then thier is less call for emergency fire to break an incoming charge, meaning you can afford to volley)

Throughout that period the ratio of musket/arquebus to pike was generally increasing. By around 1600 the preferred ratio was 3:2 to 2:1 -- but local conditions could mean a considerable amount of variation. It was considered one of the innovations of Gustavus to introduce volley fire (although the Dutch may have introduced some form of it earlier). The increasing use of the longer barreled musket (and then later arquebuses/calivers having longer barrels), may have simply meant that multi-rank fire was possible. In a charge situation, it seems to have been preferable to refrain from firing until the last possible moment, to ensure more hits. But this is all speculation.

[Galloglaich]

I'm glad to see the points seem to be converging on this a little.

The one area i still disagree with some of you on is the idea that the crossbow was easy to train.

And on a related note, this idea of a big skill difference between city militias and mercenaries.

Actually the mercenaries usually were city militias (or sometimes rural militias). Most urban militias were well trained. Most crossbowmen you read about in hundreds of battles in the Medieval and Renaissance periods were actually imported militia from cities like Genoa or Berne or Prague. Apparently these weapons were not all that easy to use (or use effectively) because various leaders in France and Germany and etc. tried to give crossbows to levies and they didn't do very well with them. With the experts, it was another story. This shows up in the records of the Teutonic Order up in the Baltic quite a bit. Crossbows evidently played a major role in their successes against the bow and javelin armed Prussians, Samogitians, Lithuanians etc. as well as against the Tartars.

The same thing was true of early firearms, gunners seemed to come from certain areas where guns were well established (like Bohemia). My theory on this is that early firearms required a better or higher level of 'gunpowder culture' than the later matchlock and (especially) wheel lock, snaphaunce and flintlock weapons which came later. People tend to discount hand gonnes and hand-culverins, but from videos I've seen and data that I've looked at, I think this is a mistake. These were powerful weapons (harder hitting than a .357 magnum) which were reasonably accurate at short range. The real problem is that handling firearms you had to ignite with a lit match on a touch hole is tricky. If you don't know what you are doing you could easily blow up the gun or the whole powder magazine.

From what i see in the historical record, it was when the arquebus began to be somewhat semi-standardized that Kings and Dukes were able to start arming ordinary levies and relatively quickly training them to use guns, which is one of the reasons the arquebus gradually began to supplant the crossbow.

But just to emphasize the point; the Conquistadors were by no means the only ones to use crossbows side by side with guns, so did the Swiss, the Venetians, the Poles, the Bohemians, the Hungarians, the Dutch and many others.

So similarly, one possible point of confusion on crossbows I think is that there were crossbows and then there were crossbows (and secondarily, there were militias and then there were militias). A crossbow available during the battle at Falkirk is not, in my opinion, even comparable to a longbow really. It may have a composite prod by that point (some did, maybe about 10-20% based on records I've seen from the armories of the Teutonic order in the 13th Century). But even the strongest available would be spanned with a foot stirrup and maybe a simple belt hook. By the 14th Century stronger weapons were appearing with heavy composite prods, requiring a windlass or a goats foot. By the 15th Century the spring-steel prods were becoming available, and had to be spanned by a cranequin. These weapons were feared. I can tell you that you see that in period documents and records. The people who used these weapons were well paid, almost always mounted with two or three servants and often more than one horse. They were not handed out to the yokel from the levy.

They WERE used by town militias, people of a certain rank, guild members etc. Those who could afford these (they were in fact possibly more expensive than an arquebus) were paid three times the normal rate of an ordinary soldier among the Swiss for example, just below the rate for cavalry.

The arquebuses that Beretta sold to Venice in 1526 cost 296 ducats for 185 barrels (most expensive part of a matchlock weapon). That is an equivalent cost of roughly 96 crowns (Kreuzer) per weapon, but I've seen records of cranequins costing 150 crowns in the Baltic. It's unclear though if those are fancy hunting weapons, or if it just means the cranequin itself and not even the weapon. Regardless, these were not cheap!

But there were also weaker crossbows around, powerful enough to kill a man, not really ideal for warfare. Same with bows. I think these kind of weapons could be and were given to raw levies or untrained troops. But I also think it is important to understand, most towns had well trained militias if they wanted to remain towns for long. And it was in fact these militias who were often hired out as mercenaries... quite frequently as crossbowmen.

Finally... on the range. yes maximum range for a heavy crossbow may be about 450 yards, (Alan Williams mentions a test done with an antique 1200 lbs draw crossbow in Italy around 1903 which had about that much range) but at that range the energy is practically nothing due to the poor aerodynamics of a crossbow bolt as compared to an arrow. I was referring to the effective direct range, which I keep seeing estimated at 150 - 200 yards.

G.

[Galloglaich]

3 options. I'll assume you are holding a sword with said shield in all cases. I'll also assume no armor on legs.
A-Move your leg. Voiding is almost always your best method of defense. Step backwards, or back and to the opposite side of the blow. So if the blow is aimed at your left leg, step back and to the right, about a 45 degree angle.
B-Even with a buckler I can reach low enough to defend my knee (though this would probably be a poor idea with a buckler) to give you an idea of reach, though with your arm that extended you probably won't stop a very strong blow. My heater shield will usually drop low enough to protect my upper shin. If the blow is going to hit my ankle or foot, see option A. Typically option A is ideal any time the weapon is aiming for any part of your body below the waist, rather than waisting the movement of your shield or weapon to guard that low.

I like to keep my shield low, it goes up easier with my flinch response and I can displace high cuts with my sword easier and I can low cuts.

G.

[fusilier]

A quick question/comment:

How common were cranequins? I thought you could get similar power from a windlass drawn crossbow, but it was just awkward (and definitely not suited to mounted crossbowmen). My understanding is that cranequins were not that common, probably due to their expense.

[Karoht]

I like to keep my shield low, it goes up easier with my flinch response and I can displace high cuts with my sword easier and I can low cuts.

G.

I'm told I should keep mine lower. I keep my heater's top rim level with my shoulder, approximately 9 inches from my body.
I was also told to never move the shield more than 6 inches in any given direction, shield bashes non-withstanding. If you have to move more than that, you are better off just moving.

[Galloglaich]

A quick question/comment:

How common were cranequins? I thought you could get similar power from a windlass drawn crossbow, but it was just awkward (and definitely not suited to mounted crossbowmen). My understanding is that cranequins were not that common, probably due to their expense.

Not too common, I've seen ratios of about 4 to 1 stirrup crossbows to windlass crossbows in some records from Switzerland and Prussia. And yes I agree with you I think that is because of the expense but then again early firearms were rare as well, as were the really heavy longbows. As were knights for that matter.

One of the features of the cranequin was that they could be used on horseback, none of the stirrup types could, and yeah obviously neither could the windlass type. I believe the large windlass type fell out of favor in the 14th - 15th Century but remained used for siege warfare.

It's hard to be sure though a lot of the data is confusing and limited.

G.

[Matthew]

Crossbows evidently played a major role in their successes against the bow and javelin armed Prussians, Samogitians, Lithuanians etc. as well as against the Tartars.

Actually, that reminds me of a good article: Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order in Prussia. Also worth a look on this subject is Saracen Archers in Southern Italy.

[Aroka]

I have a question about shields, and it is a simple one. With a not tower shield, how are you supposed to defend your leg on your shield side? I have tried many things, but given that I am mostly making stuff up when I fight and that I am in single combat skews my answers.

This was actually covered in this thread a while ago: if someone goes for your leg, you go for their head. Going low almost always leaves your head open - unless you've got a shield, of course. The other easy option is voiding - you move your foot away. That's the most basic form of avoiding any attack - move swiftly on your feet so that you're no longer in your opponent's way. If you've got a weapon and a shield, move in a way that lets you strike your extending (maybe even over-extending and unbalanced, if they try to follow your dodge) opponent. Remember, dodging doesn't mean twisting your body, especially the torso, out of the way - that unbalances you. It means moving on your feet so you don't get hit. Try to follow up voiding with a counter-attack, though - you're in a good position to do so, given your opponent's weapon is probably not at the ready to parry you.

Also, a "tower shield" is basically a pavise, and that was not for holding or for using in melee, but a portable piece of wall for protection from missiles while you load your crossbow.

[Matthew]

I see Armies of Feudal Europe 1066-1300 is available to read on Scribd. Nice bit on horse armour there.

[HenryHankovitch]

The one area i still disagree with some of you on is the idea that the crossbow was easy to train.

I think there are two big conflations going on that cause confusion:

First, that when we talk about "longbows" versus crossbows we're usually actually discussing "English warbows" versus crossbows. Because we talk English here, which means cultural saturation of Crecy in specific and Anglophilia in general. :)

My general understanding is that most longbow designs in history tend to be a 50-80 lb draw weight. Certainly that's the ballpark for modern sport and hunting bows. Whereas the Welsh/English warbow was a 100+ lb monster. So, when you have a corps of soldiers that can actually draw this beast, it gives you a noticeable advantage in range and penetration.

My suspicion is that if you compare "normal" longbows to crossbows, such advantages tend to disappear. So when we have this discussion we're specifically calling out the English warbow as an exceptional example. Of course, as you point out, not all crossbows and crossbow-men are of equal build either.

Secondly--and this was the point I was trying to highlight earlier--we're conflating skill-training with physical conditioning. With a high-weight longbow, physical conditioning is (so we are told) the largest part of "training" a bowman. Again, I bring up my example of bench-presses. The proper technique for performing a bench-press can be taught in minutes. But training someone to go from a 100lb bench press to a 200lb bench press can take several months, or years. I don't mean to imply that strength is the only consideration in training an archer; just that a heavy-pull longbow is significant in that you require physical conditioning as well as dexterity and experience.

In contrast, working a lever or belt-hook or crank on a crossbow means that you don't need to start with some sort of sturdy, muscular yeoman in order to create a competent crossbow-man. I'm not claiming that it's not a concern at all; certainly you need a soldier that can march, that can hoist a pavise, that can load that crossbow over and over and over again; but the demand on the archer's physical strength is diminished. This means that training a crossbow-man, as with training a pikeman or arquebusier, is more simply a matter of teaching him the drill manual. Make him do the same actions over and over and over again until he can do them quickly, under stress. You don't have to worry about whether he had enough protein as a child, or whether he spent his adolescence playing football on Sundays instead of drawing a longbow.

So in the end, yes, the training is not necessarily "easy." But with a crossbow, you can make a lousy bowman into a good bowman through drill. That's easy, inasmuch as drill can be taught to almost anyone. It's just a question of how much money and man-hours you can throw at the problem. Quite different from depending on an ever-dwindling stock of young Englishmen with a specific muscular capability developed over 10+ years.