Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I like you lch, so I won't beat this horse like some people might. :p We've both said our piece on that, and I recognize the validity of both perspectives, even if you think I am just wrong. :D

I'll just say that I really didn't mean to imply that we can't perform these feats with similar or greater precision - using machines. Just that in many areas, stonemasonry as a prime example, we are dependent on the aid of those machines, and the prevalence (not existence) of such skills, is far less than in previous eras.

Oh, interesting thought to chew on as well - there are structures in Nepal that are hundreds of years old, constructed only of raw timbers, hay, and mud.

I don't doubt that the modern era will leave artifacts behind, but I would think they will be interesting, rather than amazing. See Antikythera.

Okay okay, but I didn't beat the horse, I only pet it. Nice dead horse, good boy. :angel

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

As Original Poster, I demand that this thread stop.

Unless it will get me some kind of record. In that case, post away.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Chrispederson is right, that as a general rule for missile fire, volume has been more important than accuracy. An obvious side effect would also be that the missile should be useful - arrows don't stop tanks.

The Russians did a study that led up to the development of the AK-47. They found that most decisive firefights occurred at under 100 metres range and possibly the major factor to determining the winner was who was firing more bullets. Similarly, in the age of muskets, the chances of hitting a specific target with a musket beyond a few dozen metres was very low. The idea was simply to get to about 100 metres or less and fire in the right general direction as fast as possible.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

OP of the umpteenth X vs. Y thread award, maybe?

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

And by this reasoning you are emotionally involved as well through your amusement. ;)



This simply cannot be possible. The mechanical aids also deal with the very function of the bow itself and the quality of its shots before the archer is involved. And how do you train said expert archer if the quality of equipment is not a given? Technology is a good thing. If you had it why wouldn't you use it?

This relies on purely on faith and the exactness required for even a semblance of accuracy over a short distance doesn't bear this out. You are assuming that they are "good enough" and assuming that again the archers are trained to the point where they shoot "tirelessly." Not so. Each successive shot of a bowmen will tend to get worse and worse as they tire and as they suffer from fear.



I would argue that history is on my side. After all you had "highly trained archers" shooting at European powers during colonialist and imperialist times. Why then did they not overpower said troops with their bows? Many of those countries like India had the longbow in their culture for many more years and refined to a point that England never took it. But despite the fact that said Imperialist powers were armored only in a brightly colored coat and armed with a weapon that was arguably slower than a crossbow, the bow shooting peoples did not prevail. If said fighting style of cohesive lateral missile weapons were not effective the outcome of that period of history would be very different.

And again when you look at other medieval battles you see without significantly hampering the assault and other factors England did not win. I continually point to Patay because you had a well rested troop of longbows outnumbering mere French scouts and they even had some stakes set up. But despite your claims they could not cut down a mere 100 of those French in total from any distance. While they in turn were massacred. Focus and seizing the moment in a cohesive strike is far better than missile spam of dubious quality.



Simply not true for reasons that others explained.


Again I've already mentioned Constance, the Hussite Crusades, Burgundian Wars and so on. "Longbow success" had more to do with French failures than the longbow. Because when they stopped failing they started winning quite handily.

And once more you had Europeans grossly outnumbered by bow wielding indigenous populations. Who won there is quite evident. You are still exaggerating the quality per arrow. There is no slightly. It has to be way way down. There is no other possible way they could literally MISS an UNARMORED dude that many times otherwise despite them being in nicely organized blobs.

And even this brings the cost up. More materials mean more cost. The fact they even bothered with whale bone shows how important they thought they were and how they could not be "cheap."


Pride won't technology will.

Yea verily.

Compared to several other claims made by other posters that go unquestioned? Not really but you didn't ask them now did you? No doubt in several places I've read but if you want an example from the horses mouth you can look at this old English wage roll cited here in this quaint old book

http://books.google.com/books?id=r7o...esult#PPA59,M1

"Paid to Geoffry le Chamberlin, for the wages of twelve crossbow-men, and thirteen archers, for twenty-four days, each crossbow-man receiving by the day 4d and each archer 2d"

Archers made more than a standard foot mook generally and crossbows more than that as shown here.

Except that "Master of Crossbowmen" was also Master of Archers. My point is still there I'm sorry to inform you.

And the system that works is the crossbow and what "evolved" from it so to speak. That's the military legacy that came to dominate the world, the simple firearm.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

You missed the point. Operator (the archer) can change his equipment and adapt.

A skilled acher A without mechanical aid will shoot worse than skilled archer B with mechanical aid.
If both use bows WITHOUT mechanical aid, A will shoot better than B because B hasn't learned to judge things without his aids.
Which one would shoot better, if BOTH used mechanical aids? Will the things A has learned before using an aid offset the fact that B has more experience shooting with an aid?

Second, colonialist and imperialist times were different. I haven't studied the time, but gunpowder weapons would make huge difference. For one, gunpowder made knights obsolete, something longbows and crossbows never managed.

Third, crossbows and firearms aren't related. A gun isn't "better crossbow". That's like saying water-pistols are based on crossbows. Some guns are held like crossbows and I guess almost all have a trigger, but there are many guns that are nothing like the crossbow, and many of the things that make guns superior would be impossible in a crossbow.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Were they highly trained? Well disciplined? Good morale? I'd suggest overwhelmingly they were not. Many also did not have (as) good bows. Or they did not use massed bowfire. In fact, several times those Indian longbowmen actually took a fair toll on the English in battles.

You continually misportray Patay. Firstly, the English were caught unprepared with barely the time to form up, which has doomed many armies. Secondly, what you dismissively call "scouts" were HEAVY CAVALRY. Thirdly, the English (5000) outnumbered the French (1500) as a whole, but in fact there were well under 1000 longbowmen, who had neither got their stakes up properly (which you half-concede), were not supported by melee troops, nor had their flanks secured.

I severely doubt longbowmen were present in the Hussite crusades or Burgundian wars in significant numbers, or that the generals using them would be accustomed to their best usage, if indeed they even could get best usage given the relatively small number of them available.

That's like saying railways evolved from canals. Firearms did not evolve from the crossbow or the bow.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

To original question: :)
Usage of slings is mentioned in Tamerlan's memoires - at 15th century in Middle Asia - classical composite bow country.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Everyone knows what's best;

http://www.imageviper.com/displayima.../catapult1.gif

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think it would have been a GREAT idea. Load the little furry-feet.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Again you keep returning to aid in the form of aiming. Aid includes things such as weapon quality and the quality of the shot of an arrow not only the "sights" as someone mentioned before. Just because you take the hard way around doesn't mean the results are inherently better. If someone sings a beautiful opera standing up and someone seeks a very meh opera standing on his head juggling poodles with his feet who is the better singer? If you are judging by RESULTS the guy who standing wins. To judge poodle guy the winner you have to operate on faith that without the poodles the potential skill level would rise up to overcome the other singer. Longbowmen were stuck with their "poodles" from the very beginning and were worse for it because the RESULTS are going to be much much worse. There is no magical human potential that uplifts them.

They are not really different because those powers fought nations who were more or less still in the previous age using previous age weaponry. The imperialist would not have prevailed if there was a distinct tactical on battlefield advantage. And if by knight you meant mounted troops with a powerful charge no they did not disappear in practice. Cavalry was still very much in use.

Incorrect. Guns and crossbows are so alike the conquistadors used them interchangeably in their accounts. The principles in their use are alike in the main ways I already mentioned. The advantages of a held missile weapon as to achieve greater frontage, rotating ranks, improved defensive posture, and so on. Guns in their use are evolution of the crossbows uses. The Maître des Arbalétriers in France eventually evolved to the Maître de l'artillerie for that reason.

And why wouldn't they be as trained as a medieval longbowmen? And just as well disciplined? Are you seriously suggesting that a culture who had the longbow for hundreds and hundreds of years to the sophistication that they could make them from STEEL wouldn't have as good bows? LOL? And how good a bow do you need to penetrate a bright red jacket? And with the numbers they had they should have taken much more than a significant toll especially since at Assaye they had much more artillery and in fact the Indians had superior rocketry technology. But they didn't win. You are still operating on faith that English longbowmen were somehow special compared to EVERYBODY else on the planet.

They were formed up they had TIME to hammer some stakes down. How prepared do those sorry jokers need to be? LOL! There were lot of archers as usual if the longbow was a rapid shooting crazy machine of awesomeness said cavalry would have been toast. But it didn't happen. Because they weren't as good as you think they are.

The Hussite Crusades were a big deal. Everybody was spamming troops at them. Longbowmen were a major part of Charles the Bold's military identity to point where they are continually featured in depictions of his army.

Addressed above.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

By the way, in the current discussion nobody is going to prove anything as both sides continually oversimplify and use "common sense" approach instead of comparing data. (And India example isn't going to prove anything as there was NO army in history that didn't conquer it at one time or another - except possibly Romans... :D)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Dominions has a good balance with crossbows and longbows (as well as regular bows too). I own crossbows and my wife has a longbow. I have absolutely no problem with the mechanics in Dominions.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The crossbow touches me in bad places... But seriously this discussion is getting silly.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

No. Firearms replaced crossbows where crossbows were prevalent, and replaced bows where bows were prevalent. Early firearm usage more closely relates to the crossbow due to the fire rate and weapon shape, but that does not in any way mean it evolved from crossbows.

Discipline, experience, morale and training etc. obviously have nothing to do with how long a culture has had a technology, and there's plenty of evidence the Indian archers of the period did not score highly on most of those counts.

The musket was superior to the longbow or crossbow, equally obviously. No-one's trying to claim bow-armed troops would casually massacre an army 400-500 years more advanced.

(And secondly, you previously said "bow wielding indigenous populations" from which we could infer Native Americans, Dervishes, or whoever else. Now you're just changing your argument to specify Indians.)

I don't think any archers on the planet, ever, could stop a heavy cavalry charge without adequate infantry support, a proper defensive position, or being on a horse themselves to move away. That applies to crossbows or longbows.

I think you are treating everyone arguing with you here as a "longbow fanboy" (in your own words). Your arguments amount to little more than misrepresenting us as if we think a few longbowmen instantly dominate any battlefield. As everyone has gone to great, great pains to state this is not the case, I do not understand why you persist with it. Until you wish to be reasonable, I don't see the point continuing this debate.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

What everyone forgets about english victories in the early period of the hundred years war, is the english king of that time was a military genius compared to french one. He devised a clever plan to take care of french superiority in cavalry. While our king just charged forward.

So I don't think we can say english equipment of that time was superior to french one, no more we can say french equipment was superior to all others in 1800 due to the success of Napoleon.

Sun Tzu explains quite clearly in his book that military success is all about surprising your ennemy, and outwitting him, than just having bigger guns. The (all relative) failure of USA forces during some of their campains well shows that just having many high tech big guns is not enougth to ensure a victory. (I'm more precisely thinking about the campain of france in 1944 : they lost as many men than the germans, having total superiority in many domains (air, supplies...))

And someone said england was a better place to be a peasant in the medieval era than the continental countries. Well, I'm sure it is for this reason that England was the first country in europe to get rid of a dinasty. By chopping some crowned heads off.... :)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

The English Civil War was a power struggle between the king and the gentry (= minor aristocracy). Peasants were neither here nor there, nor were they in the French Revolution.

I'd agree though that there's probably little evidence to say an English peasant was in a better position than a Continental peasant, although Western European peasants were better off than Eastern European serfs.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I think some one needs to contact a prof specialized in this field since it's obvious all points of view can get backed up by some web page or another :D

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I must agree that peasants were rarely part of anything political during medieval time. Too busy suffering maybe ?

The main problem with history is that it's all about theories, with little evidence. People never think about leaving fool prof evidence ahead of time. Rather the contrary, in fact. (if this message upsets anyone, I'm sorry, as usual...Blah,blah,blah... no intention to cause harm or...blah, blah,blah... not sue able in anyway.Thanks for reading.)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

There's nothing like the web for allowing lots of people who don't know enough about something to spout opinions based on the webpage opinions of other people who don't know enough either. ;)

We could probably boil the longbow versus crossbow debate down to: "Both worked well in their own different ways".

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Catapult FTW!!1

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I said that like 60 posts ago. :p

Then a certain someone claimed that victory does not prove the usefulness of a tool. I firmly believe that if the tool that you have works, then it is good. You may wish you had an impact wrench, but you got the bolts loose, and that's all that matters in the end.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

If you mean purely technology wise yes but in usage and essential principles they are on the same line which is how they could coexist in essentially the same breath until the firearm was refined.

This reasoning of yours is dubious and somewhat vague. There's nothing about the English medieval archer that would suggest they would surpass the Indian one on any of these aspects. If anything the Indian army had a more complex way of breaking down the chain of command.

And if rate of shooting and the accuracy of those arrows were "good enough" as has been stated before by others this wouldn't be true because speed wise the musket is in the same ballpark as the crossbow and accuracy wise it is in many ways worse. That was what I was getting at.

I'm not changing anything as I've mentioned Indians specifically before.



Perhaps but one is very much more reliant of support and other factors than the other. I'll give you a hint it rhymes with "bong snow."

Even when arguments do not include "instantly dominating" they have cue words that try to wheedle something special out of them. You are all not a hive mind and like I said when I post I try to be comprehensive and remember all that has been said before by other people and not just who I'm quoting at the moment. And if you remember I was speaking of this phenomenon existing elsewhere as well. There have been elements of weirdness, the original post's assertion, the assumptions made by certain individuals about how arrows can behave, three arrows in a bird before it hits the ground and all that. Not all of you are in agreement. If fact the only thing you all agree on is acting like you all agree when talking to me. ;)

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Because the one thing that we all seem to agree on - is that you seem to be turning a personal preference into historical fact, and that your approach to expressing such has a tonality that makes people not want to agree with you from the start (re: immediate failure of an argument once the opposition has been called a fanboy, a homosexual, or a nazi).

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Again as I have already mentioned my personal preference is one of parity in these games I don't want one to be overpowered over the other, but "historical fact" is what I've been telling you personal preference or not. Arguing that "tonality" matters, but then claiming the importance of fact is contradictory as someone can say a fact calling another a "homosexual nazi fanboy" without the fact becoming a nonfact; tonality changes nothing. Otherwise I could have dismissed anyone calling me a troll or saying I was biased against the English or unreasonable or other tricks without addressing the core of what they were saying in turn, no? Like I said speaking broadly and relating about what is seen in these versus things over the past if you don't fit the profile I am obviously not talking about you then am I?

And again like I said your consensus doesn't exist and if did it matters no more than "tonality" does. Such things are only failures in argument when it is all they have left.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Your entire argument, starting from your initial post, has been that crossbows are -superior- to longbows, and in fact you seem to want to argue every single point - thus implying that your viewpoint is that crossbows are superior to longbows in every conceivable way (except for cost!). Also, if you go back and reread your first post, it is openly insulting to people you have never had a running dialogue with. This has the result of making people who believe that "neither weapon is superior in all cases" want to disagree with you. It's not so much that you alienate people who already agree with you completely, it's that you alienate everyone who does NOT already agree with you completely, which is most people. Facts matter, but also approaching a disagreement in a manner that invites people to agree with you AND allows people to politely disagree without feeling foolish - is almost equally important, when communicating with other humans (we may not look like much on the internets, but I assure you, most of us ARE human).


And again, it was made simply and abundantly clear that currently both weapons have equal usefulness, with the usefulness of slings (just mentioned for clarity) waning already in Middle Age, and the usefulness of short/long/composite bows beginning to wane in Late Age, as crossbows come into prominence.

One person makes a post wondering if longbows should be AP as well, and it seems that the discussion was showing a lack of need for a change, and a lack of any momentum pushing for a change. In fact, by the time you arrived, the discussion had transformed into one of the relative merits of different weapons and armor, and what really constitutes armor "piercing" damage in the first place.


Personally I thought it was a pretty interesting discussion, until you so rudely brought it back onto the original topic. Not necessarily saying it's best to range so far off topic (though I love it, myself), just that you kind of pooped the party, my friend.

On slings
 

I'm new to these forums as I was really supposed to be figuring out how to load my pretender into my first mp game but have been distracted for three hours catching up on this thread. I just have to share my own opinions and knowledge on the subject.

Firstly I'd like to discuss slings. Slings are mentioned prominately by Homer, Xenophon, Ceaser and others. It was consdered a very effective weapon in the ancient world.
The term bullet comes from medievel french for lead sling stones. Lead sling stones being mentioned first by Xenophon in the Retreat of the Ten Thousand. I believe a lead sling stone could easily penetrate an unarmored persons body and crack skulls. Even against armored foes it was effective, the vaunted Spartans lost an engagement because sling armed skirmishers got on their flanks during a battle.

Indeed slings seem to be a weapon used exclusively by skirmishers, and not even professional soldiers at that. One of the advantages of the sling is it is one handed meaning that one could carry a shield. Additionally as mentioned previously in this thread, slings do not lend themselves to formation fighting. This combination of loose formation and shields meant that professional slingers were terribly effective against archers(reference Xenophon)and were used thusly by the Greeks and Persians. One has to consider that while Xenophon is only discussing the greeks in asia, everyone who faced massed archers from the egyptians to the chinese probably had professional slingers. Indeed I've seen Egyptian reliefs showing "chariot runners" armed with slings.

As mentioned earlier in the thread slings were probably favored for their utility more than firepower. Afterall one wouldn't use expensive lead bullets when bagging game, but more likely a well worn stone from a stream. That said, it's use by children and it's cheapness meant that in times of war there would be a rather large pool of proficient slingers about. Just give them some lead bullets and shields. Instead of a rabble you have a threat, albeit a threat with low morale. Even with just stones a bunch of thirteen year olds had to be dealt with.

The decline of the sling coincides with the rise of calvary. Before the rise of calvary massed formations aided in shock attack. After horses got big enough to ride soldiers had to remain in formation for survival.

An interesting variation of the sling is the staff sling. I know of no ancient reference of there use. According to wikipedia it does appear in ancient art. In the movie Apocalyto a staff sling is shown tossing a head sized rock about fifty feet. Of course it's hollywood but the scene made an impression on me.

In game terms (I never expect these changes to be applied) sling armed troops should fight in loose formation and given bonuses for dodging arrows. Actually this dodge should apply to any skirmishers in the game what ever they're armed with. The actual mechanics of both melee combat and ranged combat within dominions3 would make this quite accurately in my opinion.

The biggest shortcoming for sling armed (and javelin armed troops) in dominions3 is their battlefield performance. I've given up fielding these units. The short range and lack of precision are, in my opinion accurate. When I try to deploy them behind my infantry they do not advance towards the enemy with the infantry. This results in the before mentioned sling/javelin armed troops standing still and showering my own troops as much as the enemy. this really hurts since Mictlan's troops get hammered by friendly slings due to low armor as opposed to the enemy who actually wear armor.

You know what?! I just realized I might get the response I want if I place these troops on attack closest instead of fire closest orders. I shall experiment.

Almost all slingers should be given a shield, only none nation specific slingers would be without shields as they represent unprofessional youths armed with slings. The actual stats of the non nation specific slingers I agree heavily with. As I do with the slings of Mictlan. Abysia should gain AP for they're use of lead bullets?

Anything statement not backed by a specific reference is my own opinion and probably wrong.

My next post will be on bows.

Bows
 

Bows used in war can be broken into two very broad categories. Composite bows and Longbows. Battlefield performance of both weapons is pretty much the same. Longbows had the advantage of being cheaper and easier to make, however pertty much everywhere but southeast asia (southern india, indo china, and the indonesian archapeligo) the composite bow displaced the longbow.

Predating the composite bow, the longbow required good hardwood, abundent in SE asia. The longbow was much more resistent to moisture and heat. This probably explains it's retention in SE asia.

Composed primarily of horn and sinew the composite bow was more expensive and time consuming to manufacture. However it was shorter, handier, and the materials for it's construction were readily availble everywhere (Had beef for dinner? Favorite horse just died?). The rise of chariot and later cavalry probably fueled the developemnt of the shorter composite bow. Both the persian and egyptian empires of antiquity were built on the backs of this weapon.

The classic use in warfare was as the "arrow storm." This is the classic strategy of firing as many arrows as possible at the opposing force attempting to "blot out the sun." In this strategy arrows would not be considered armor piercing, indeed the wounds inflicted by arrows used in this manner would hardly even be considered life threatening (unless like Harold at Hastings you catch one in the eye). That is unless they hadn't been poisoned.

Poisoned arrows are mentioned in the some of the earliest writings. The Scythian hero Heracles both used arrow poison and died from it. Herodotus' reciepe for Scythian arrow poison is as follows.

Dig a hole
Insert freshly dead venomous snake into hole
Defecate into hole
Cover hole and wait a week.
Coat your arrow heads in the resulting slime

This was common right up until the introduction of gun powder. Standing under an arrow storm in armor with a shield meant you were likely to survive the barrage. If you so much as even got scratched you'd have wanted to seek immediate medical attention before infection and gangrene set in. This was a bummer for morale.

In the Bayeux tapestry Norman archers are shown with their arrows in the dirt. The only reason to do this is because you don't want to defecate into your quiver. Horse archers weren't able to do this, having to draw their arrows from quivers, and no one ever complained that it slowed their rate of fire.

All war bows were able to peirce mail up to about 10 meters if wielded by a professional archer. This wasnt seen as an issue. After all this was what shields were for. Plate armors were introduced to combat early firearms.

Now the Welsh longbow was something special altogether. It was clearly a superior weapon system in the cattle rustling/raid/reprisal raid that charcaterized warfare in the absence of the nation state. Remember the Normans were originally vikings that settled in France and knowing a good idea when they saw it adopted cavalry. Upon encountering the Welsh longbow the decendents of the Normans abandoned the cavalry charge in favor of the longbow.

Someone said that the longbow was cheap. Not true. The English were importing yew staves from the continent by the reign of Edward the IV for the construction of longbows. The poeple of England were paying their taxes in arrows throughout the hundred years war. The use of the longbow died out because the yew became an endangered species thorught Europe because of English demand. No other wood would do for the english longbow.

Another point made in the thread was that bodkin points were made of hard iron and would shatter upon impact. This would have been seen as a plus since it would prevent your opponent from firing it back at you. The romans used soft iron in the constrution of their pilums (javelins) so that if they hit a shield the weapon would deform preventing their opponents from throwing the weapon back at the romans.

One of the biggest mysteries concerning ancient archery I know of comes from the obelisk describing Ramses 'victory' at Karnack. The Egyptians are supposed to have fired reed arrows 800 meters. How does one fire an arrow made of reeds? Some sort of sabot system maybe? Take a regular arrow shaft, split in half, cut a groove in the middle and place the reed there. With a good tail wind maybe you'll get 800 meters out of it? Would be a good harassing weapon if nothing else.

I share my knowledge of croosbows tomorrow.

Re: Bows
 

I've read that arrows were stuck into the dirt because that way they were more readily available. I don't know how long it takes to pull an arrow from a quiver, but for long arrows it's faster to stick them to the ground and grab the closest one. I'm not sure how long the arrows for a longbow would be, but if they're long enough the archer wouldn't even have to bow down that much.

Horse archers' fire rate wouldn't have mattered as much, because they didn't do the "arrow storm" thing AFAIK. Weren't horse archers all about hit-and-run: riding near the enemy force with an arrow ready, letting it loose, and then riding out of their archers' range and readying another arrow?

Also, horse archers couldn't use longbows because they were too long. The longer arrows could also be slower to draw from a quiver.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

For a longbow with it's (presumably, I actully don't know) longer arrows placing them in the dirt at your feet would be quicker than using a quiver. However this would only apply to set peice battles and prepared ambushes. The Normans were using compound bow at hastings and the bayeaux tapestry shows them putting their arrows in the dirt.

I believe the first mention of the Welsh longbow is from the Peterbough Chronicle. The Norman's were mentioning the bows of the Welsh as something special upon they're very first encounters with it. I think I read once that most bows could penetrate mail at 30 feet the Welsh/English longbow could perice mail at 50 feet.

I've only ever heard the claim that pathologists can identify English longbowmen because of their bones. I've never heard this stated about any other archers anywhere any time. The draw on those things must have been huge.

As for horse archers and arrow storms. Oh yes they did! That was the point! Imagine two thousand horse archers charging you, rank upon rank of them, and firing arrows as they charged. The arrows fired from further away coming in at high angles while arrows fired from closer at lower angles impacting at near the same time. At about thirty feet from your line they suddenly wheel away carrocle style performing the parthian shot as they ride away. Once safely away from you the horse archers would reload their quivers and do it agian and again and again. When you couldn't take it anymore, to busy hiding behind your shield and not expecting it, they'd not wheel away. Whipping out their sabres at the last instant and charge home. Also horse archers could ride around your shield wall on the flanks pouring fire into your formations ala old holywood westerns with the indians riding in circles around the wagonberg.

The magyars smashed numerically superior armies again and again using this, only to have the mongols return the favor a few centuries on.

I've seen a Magyar composite bow. It was truly a work of art. The waterproofing was snakeskin.

I'll write my opinions on crossbows tomorrow night. Someone started a thread on pikes and I definately have to get in on that ;)

Re: Bows
 

Most of what you said is accurate. However, it was not entirely for bows that caused the yew to become endangered. Yew was also used in crossbeams in ships, which contributed significantly.

For these and other reasons england developed the royal forests, and royal forestry laws - to the extant that at some point it was punisheable by death fell trees in these forests.

I have also seen the Mongolian foot bow - a huge recurved bow, sometimes up to 8 feet - that could fire an arrow WELL more 800 m.

The abilities of the ancients truly were amazing... the largest trebuchets used vs constaninople were able to fire a stone weighing a ton, almost a mile. Constantinople had walls up to 20 feet thick and 40 feet high or so...

Re: Bows
 

I didnt know yew was a preferred wood in ship building. Where can I learn more?

I thought the ancient greeks had those too, but apparently I was thinking of this...

I've read similar statements concerning the ammunition fired at the siege of Constantinople but I thought it was launched by something similar to this

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Some bows have been capable of extreme ranges, but I think we could assume they were specialised for the purpose, maybe for medieval bragging rights. Your average skilled battlefield archer with a powerful long or composite bow would be unlikely to exceed 300-400 metres.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

It was my understanding that they, of course, were for specialized use, referred to by terms such as War Bow and Siege Bow (in various languages). Their use (AFAIK) was similar to mortar fire today - indirect bombardment across valleys or over walls to harass and demoralize an opponent that is trying to maintain a defensive position.

Re: Bows
 

The mongolian bow I was referring to was fired lying down, using the feet against the bow, and drawing back with the muscles of the arm and abdomen.

I saw it in a korean war museum - along with a replica of the turtle - a boat with metal plating done hundreds of years before the merrimac. I haven't found any online references to it.

For more usual bows, Ottoman Sultan Selim III was once witnessed to have fired an arrow from a Turkish composite bow an amazing distance of 889metres (2917feet) though its effective range was considerably less.

As for the dardanelles guns - no, I wasn't speaking about guns, but actual trebuchets or catapults - the word has different meanings depending on where in the world you are.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

I hope I'm not bothering anyone by repeating something from earlier in the thread. But I did a quick read and didn't see any of this.

I am an archer as a hobby. And a mechanical engineer. Here are a few bits of the physics of a bow.

1) The killing power of an arrow and also it's armour piercing ability is a function of the kinetic energy. Which is mass times velocity squared.

2) The kinetic energy imparted into an arrow or bolt is not a linear function of the draw strength. It is actually closer to the area of the draw from bow tip to tip versus the area of a strung bow not drawn. Therefore, the taller the bow the more energy for the same draw weight. So, simply put, a 100 lb composite bow 4 feet tall puts less energy into the arrow than a 100 lb long bow.

3) Cross bows have VERY short draws and generally very small bows. 36 inch is quite big. Longer and they are unweildy to shoot through crenelations. These two combined mean that crossbows must have much greater draw strength to put the same kinetic energy into the bolt.

4) Crossbow bolts have less mass than arrows. Both are usually the same diameter and made of much the same material. But arrows are 2-3 times longer.

5) In bow hunting, a 50 lb regular recurve bow is acceptable by law in my province. To hunt with a crossbow you must use 150 lb minimum. This is due to the clearly superior penetration of bows for comparable draw. Lighter crossbows are banned because the have insufficient penetration.

6) One clear advantage to using a crossbow to hunt is it may be carried drawn. Drawing a bow can be noisy enough to spook the prey.

I am also a recreationist. Our club uses draw weight to define acceptable sizes of bows and crossbows for combat archery. Bows may not be more than 30 lb. Crossbows may be 60. Having been hit many times by these using blunts, I can clearly say that a 30 lb japanese long bow hits MUCH harder than any recurve or crossbow within those rules.

As an archer there are some very interesting effects of bow shape. Recurve bows draw hard initially and remain fairly hard to hold drawn. Long bows are quite easy to start to draw but the weight increase rapidly at full draw. They are extremely hard to hold drawn.

I typically shoot a 55 lb recurve bow for traditional target archery. I'm a very large man and quite strong but I can only hold full draw for about 10 seconds. However, I can shoot 6 arrows in 30 seconds quite easily. It's not as accurate as a bit slower, but I can hit the target and score fairly well. My accuracy does not improve much by shooting slowly. With my large bow, my arm shakes and I lose accuracy if I hold it.

So, the real physical effects of bows and crossbows suggest some answers to these questions. English and Japanese longbows in the hands of a strong and skilled archer have very high penetration. The only comparable crossbows are the crank type. The simple goatsfoot crossbows that load moderately quickly have no where near the penetration. And that's simple physics. Even the 150 lb horseback composites typically have less penetration than a long bow.

PS: The thugs informed me I misread the date. I'm a year too late.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Wow, you resurrected this thread Maerlande? Well, your post was good, and informative.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well, I didn't really mean to resurrect a dead thread. Someone made a mention of it on IRC and I saw a place to comment with some science. But I misread the date of the last post :) I guess I still don't quite live in 2010.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Sorry for my English, it's not native :)

"Don't get me wrong. I have never been in a crossbow or a longbow fight, but the Battle of Crecy was won by longbowmen zinging the French Knights to death, right?"

That's a nice legend, but reality can be quite far from our understanding of what really happened there. There were numerious scintific reconstructions - scientists found examples of iron, which was used in french armors, and arroheads of arrows of longbowmens. And, having estimated arrow speed (using special cameras, and devices) , sent by professional archer, they made experiment - English arrows with iron quality which was used during this fight against french armor of that time. And arrows when were hitting armor in most of cases didn't pierce it.
Of course, if there are a lot of arrows, and french knights were not covered ideally with it, and there we different armors, probably.. but they came to different theory which, by their belief explains what happened there.

The main difference between English forces and French was in a very high amount of long bowmen (which were just twice cheaper than footmen). These guys were not really protected a lot, were in cloth boots, some shirts...something very far from heavy armored french men. Of course there were footmen also, but proportions.

The field was chosen by English strategists, basing on this difference.
It was a very nerrow field, where French just could not attack from many siddes, and had to send all army through quite narrow place. It was rain, a lot of mud. A lot of French knights, trying to get through narrow part of the field, and shower of English arrows, which added to this mess. French, heavy armored knights, just struck in mood by their heavy iron boots.When you are in a mess of bodies and mood, you are heavy, and your heavy boots struck in a land, swampy from rain, you are quite limited..English longbowmen, with their cloth boots and no heavy staff, were much more mobile, and just more effective, killing them, just by stabbing their long knifes into faces and weak places of armors of the French.. Then huge amount of French just gave up. And, king of England, just executed them all because he didn't believe that he has already won and expected more French to come and to free his numerious prisoners.

I don't remember the film, where all this research was explained. Some made in UK, for sure.

So, long bows have quite cool reputation, but, really , it is based more on this battle, and in this battle it was strategy and weather, who brought victory to England, and long bows were maybe third factor,or 4th, 5th..etc.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Sounds like the analysis done by John Keagan in "The Face of Battle"

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Sigh. Old topic is old, dead, beaten into the ground and trampled upon by dozens of reanimated longdead horsemen. Maerlande, you must die now :(.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well I told you I misread!!! But Trumanator threatened me with dire consequences if I deleted my post. So all I could do in fairness was admit I misread the date.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Besides, you are just trying to pump your post count!

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Which of course I would never dream of doing.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Trumanator is a bad, naughty boy. He will also be punished. I hardly care about my post count, if I did I wouldn't hit the edit button so much :P

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

So, one of the major effects of longbows at Agincourt was killing the horses. Now, admittedly, the French did try to charge into the narrow approach to the English position, which was pretty stupid. Given the press of knights, a dead horse throwing its rider down to the ground would have resulted in a likely dead knight as he was trampled by his fellows.

You're wrong about the reason for executing prisoners. Because the French so vastly outnumbered the English, the English did not have the man-power to adequately guard all the prisoners they had captured. So when the French made an attempt to free them, either there was confusion as to who was fighting and who wasn't (leading to a lot of slain prisoners), or the commander ordered prisoners who could not be adequately guarded slain to avoid prisoners being freed and rejoining the battle. It certainly wasn't a pre-emptive move - it was a response to an attempt to free the prisoners.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Dude this whole thread is ridiculous everyone knows that longbows are awesome and ruled the world and crossbows are for peasants and sucked and japanese people fought with dual katanas like in that Tom Cruise documentary.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Yeah, and Tom Cruise also shows in his documentary that the average american gunslinger is better at swordmanship than a samurai having trained all his life.PURE FACT.

It is also well known crossbows could barely hurt an englishman, 'cause god walks with them.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Sombre, as for executing prisoners, It is not my analysis, it's what these researchers came to, and they can base their theory either on some historical evidence, or not. But It is hard for me to imagine they would invent such idea like reason of execution, without any evidences. Though, I don't know the reality. French and English historians can see reasoning of execution quite differently. It's quite normal in history. We know the "truth" mostly from those nations who could write better or who won :)

As for training of longbowmen...I don't really think it takes years to train, at least if we speak about English longbowmen. Otherwise they wouldn't cost twice less then swordsmen (it's historical fact from records of vassals , who supplied their people to English army for this battle.)

There is a big difference between training a sportsmen, who needs to shoot with high level of precision, and squad of archers, whose task is much simpler - just position the bow in a proper angle to horizon and use certain amount of force to deliver an arrow on a distance which he is commanded to shout. Though it requires force, it is not real "targeting" there. You are just taking part in doing shower from arrows, not shooting into the apple on a head of a princess.

Re: Crossbows vs. Longbows
 

Well, longbowmen were much lower class than most swordsmen, and their equipment was also far less. The "training" bit was actually more an accident of history than anything else. A yeoman tradition of using the Longbow had spread through England and Wales, producing an excellent crop of soldiers right when England needed them.