Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Gandalf Parker]

I thought that the big difference between crossbow and longbow was range?
A crossbow tended to be frontline, you shot at big things close up, they hit with lots of force and the troop only needed to be able to hit the broad side of a barn (which happened to be charging him).
Longbows shot from far back, high arches, rained down upon the enemy. As the enemy drew closer they tended to shoot directly and needed to hit man sized targets.

Slings were just a non-magical shards spell. A rain of stones whose affects were less about damage and more about the raining down and minor wounds on morale. I handt considered the "hitting yourself on the head" thing. Yes slings might have fallen out of favor with the use of tight formations. The same timing and reasoning as quarterstaffs giving way to pikes, swinging swords giving way to stabbing ones, etc.

[GrudgeBringer]

A couple of points (and excuse my spelling)

A. One of the reasons Shepards continued to use Slings even after Bows where more or less the Weapon of choice amonst the Armies of the time, is that shepards had to be prepared to fight off wild animals ALL the time. They had no time to run over and pick up thier bow, find the arrows and THEN get off a shot. By then the Wolf already was gone with the meal.

Shepards didn't just use slings when in formation shooting at a target that was coming for the most part straight at them.

Another reason is Shepards had a tendency to use thier Slings on the run,
while chasing or fighting off predators.

There is one version of David and Goliath that says that David started RUNNING at Goliath when he used his sling. The Reason, because he was used to chasing predators and was more accurate while moving.

2. I saw a documentary about the battle at Agincourt that pitted a Longbow of the day agianst the best armour that the French Knights would have used in that battle.

The results whre startling...Until very close, FEW of the arrows could pierce the Armour.

What turnd the battle was that the Archers where massed at the bridge and the Knights tried to go around the bridge.

Unfortunetly, It has been rainng for 2 days and the knight got bogged down letting the archers fire at close range.

Even this didn't win the battle (though it certainly had an impact).

The archers shot the horses which threw the knights to the gound in the deep muck and as they piled upon each other the ones on the bottom suffocated while the ones on the top took fire at close range.

But, It WAS the first battle that Longbows where used and they DID win the day..even if it wasn't like we thought.

Agian, it was a documentary (History International)....I have not done any study on it.

just an opinion.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Slings were just a non-magical shards spell. A rain of stones whose affects were less about damage and more about the raining down and minor wounds on morale. I handt considered the "hitting yourself on the head" thing. Yes slings might have fallen out of favor with the use of tight formations. The same timing and reasoning as quarterstaffs giving way to pikes, swinging swords giving way to stabbing ones, etc.

I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with every point you make here.

Sling bullets were deadly. It's not throwing a rock at someone, but shooting it with enough force to break bones, or to go through your skin into your stomach. I never learned to aim properly, but it isn't hard to fling a stone with enough force to hear it ricochet even four or five times when thrown into a forest. You can't see it, of course, but the thunk-thunk-thunk sound it makes when it hits tree-trunks is quite satisfactory, and I saw small branches falling from where the stone flew. Small in this case being about the thickness of my thumb.

As for quarterstaves being replaced by pikes, well, quarterstaves were not weapons of war. They weren't meant to be, either. Pikes were designed to be used in formations, quarterstaves were not. Neither could be used to replace the other. Not to mention the size difference; short staff was half the length of a pike, or about two-and-half to three meters. There was also a long staff, but I don't think it's called quarterstaff.

Finally, "swinging swords giving way to stabbing" having "the same timing" as slings giving way to shortbows just isn't accurate to my knowledge. I was talking about slings being used in Biblical and in Roman times, and Romans used short thrusting swords but still relied on slingers. Balearic islanders were known as skilled slingers and were often recruited as mercenaries, including in Hannibal's campaign against Rome.

[Aezeal]

As I said I still think the main problem with slings was their AP potential is much less, with increasing armor their effectiveness dropped and relative effec of bows improved. I guess that being very precise over a long range with a sling is much more problematic than with a bow and that for new recruits (which IMHO a large number of the troops in big wars where) that meant the effect of arrows was again better (and later for crossbows which might be even better to aim somewhat)

[BesucherXia]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

2. I saw a documentary about the battle at Agincourt that pitted a Longbow of the day agianst the best armour that the French Knights would have used in that battle.

The results whre startling...Until very close, FEW of the arrows could pierce the Armour.

What turnd the battle was that the Archers where massed at the bridge and the Knights tried to go around the bridge.

Unfortunetly, It has been rainng for 2 days and the knight got bogged down letting the archers fire at close range.

Even this didn't win the battle (though it certainly had an impact).

The archers shot the horses which threw the knights to the gound in the deep muck and as they piled upon each other the ones on the bottom suffocated while the ones on the top took fire at close range.

But, It WAS the first battle that Longbows where used and they DID win the day..even if it wasn't like we thought.

Agian, it was a documentary (History International)....I have not done any study on it.

just an opinion.

The first point is interesting, yet you must have made mistakes about Battle of Agincourt. The battle took place on a narrow grass between two forests, and most of the French knights were dismounted. Some further studies belive the french plate armors were well proved in that battle, just the mud and terrible leadership brought French that defeat.

I guess in game that's more like 100 man-at-arms under the curse of stone from Henry V get slaughtered by 30 longbowmen. (p.s, the longbowmen in game do have good strength for melee.)

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with every point you make here.

No problem. I was thinking of an article comparing the "everymans weapons" and "solo hero" imagery to what was claimed as a shift in weaponry for formation use even when it was not as effective. But it was more of a romantisized rennaisance fair type of article than an historical study. It seemed to hold some logic. Since Kristoffer seems to try and hold to both the historical and the romantisized it seemed worth offering up.

[jaif]

A. One of the reasons Shepards continued to use Slings even after Bows where more or less the Weapon of choice amonst the Armies of the time, is that shepards had to be prepared to fight off wild animals ALL the time. They had no time to run over and pick up thier bow, find the arrows and THEN get off a shot. By then the Wolf already was gone with the meal.

The problem with bows in this context is that you can't leave them strung all the time - you will ruin the bow. It's not a question of keeping the bow close at hand, it's a question of stringing it when you saw a predator.

On top of that, bows and arrows are expensive. Slings and ammunition are cheap.

-Jeff

[Aezeal]

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well I think the being cheap part is mostly why shepards used it.
But the fact the army didn't despite that must means slings < bows so dom 3 rocks

Slings are better than poor bows, and there are thousands of years of wars fought before bows became better than slings.

Vegetius, a Roman writer in the late 4th century, observed in his famous Epitoma Rei Militaris:
Soldiers, despite their defensive armor, are often more aggravated by the round stones from the sling than by all the arrows of the enemy. Stones kill without mangling the body, and the contusion is mortal without loss of blood.


This article (on slinging.org) has several chosen quotes about the slings' effectiveness. They probably chose the pro-slinging quotes, but at least this particular quote shows that slings could be as or even more effective as bows.

[chrispedersen]

Cretan, and miletan slingers were famous throughout the ancient world.

However it took years to be able to master the staff sling. Even more than longbowman.

Longbowman also had the advantage of indirect fire - ie., that they could fire *over* intervening troops.

But fundamentally, longbowman were simply out produced. I've seen studies that showed the 'muzzle' velocity for longbows and period crossbows of the time - were approximately even - and are still closer than you might think.

but good crossbows were much easier to mass produce than bows.