Crossbows vs. Longbows

[Incabulos]

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by Incabulos

Just watched a history channel special on xbows and longbows, an also a show on the battle of Crecy.

The longbow archers fired a rate of roughly 12 arrows a minute. So every 5 seconds.

The range of the longbow outpaced the range of the xbow until you get into the composite xbows which were certainly not cheap and were very labour intensive and because of cranking the rof on those was terrible.

Sheer numbers of arrows and the fact that England was using the longbow during a period of mounted nobility meant the longbow was incredibly effective at halting charges. The lack of penetration at long ranges is one reason English longbowmen were trained to aim for the horses. Longbow groups were also more mobile than xbow groups who used pavises from behind which they fired. (although they were left on the baggage train at crecy).

What it boiled down to in the programs was that whoever has to charge the enemy is going to hurting, thhose charging longbows through sheer volume and barrages at multiple points in the charge. Those charging at pavise protected xbows would be killed at a much closer range.

But the biggest purpose of the xbows and thier pavises was to provide a line of defence and retreat from which the knights could charge.

Of course at Crecy the French knights ended up killing the Genoese xbows when they routed, I guess the 'cowardice'(they were being slaughtered) sent them into a rage. Just one of many errors that helped the English succeed against such odds.

For what it is worth- Drawing a full longbow is incredibly muscle intensive. Firing at the max rate of fire was only possible for a minute or two before even the most comptent bowmen gave out. Realistically, after the initial volley most bowmen would pace themselves to a much slower rate of fire- faster than a crossbow, but not to the point of firing every few seconds.

On top of that, any archer who fired at the speed people have been describing would empty his quiver within minutes. The most arrows I have ever read of an archer carrying was 60, and that was in multiple quivers, and they were smaller arrows for a horsebow. (Marco Polo's decription of a mongolian warrior)

[Incabulos]

accounts of Crecy describe porters continually bringing arrows from the supply lines.

It also described that a ferocious rate was only needed for the first charge. The resulting field of long arrows and crippled horses etc meant the second charge was much less of a threat.

A barrier of dead horses was actually achieved. Of course Crecy is an example of where the longbow really shined, and was put to great tactical use. The terrain forced a difficult charge and approach from a single direction.

In modern tests they did show that it wasn't until the last 1/4 of a charge (when the knights were almost at the base of the hill) that the arrows penetrated armor. The first 1/4 of the charge and almost no arrows hit even the horse. The last 1/4 of the charge almost all the arrows would hit. The targets looked like hedgehogs.\\they also timed the charge to cover the field and it took 40 seconds. That is an awful long time to be under fire from that many longbows. Crossbows simply would not have been as effective.

Seems to me crossbows would excel at taking down slower moving heavily armoured infantry.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by MachingunJoeTurbo

You can't vary the drawing of the bow and still have it work the way it is suppose to work. They wouldn't have been able to shoot over that wall at any distance within their range. For example if they were close they couldn't just give the arrow a little tug to scoot over. Bows have to be shot full powered. It's simply the mechanics of how they work. Read my post and I'm talking about absolute arcing all the time. They obviously can do so when in a position that allows them in accordance with the power of their weapon but not in the way you see in these games where the crossbow is forced to shoot straight and the bow has all this extra magical flexibility. You can ,and they did, lob high angle shots with a crossbow too. However that isn't arching whenever is it? That is my point if I was not clear.

I haven't seen longbows used in the way you describe, in games or in movies. What games are you talking about, and what, exactly, is this magical aiming effect?

At least to me, your original mention of arcing seemed to ignore the fact that the archers have more options than "straight" and "arc of X degrees". Changing the angle the arrows are fired at will also affect the place where they come down, obviously. While it can't be used always, it would allow for some flexibility. The constant force is also a limit for crossbows, also used in similar manner.

They were massed because they could be because they were cheap enough for the populace to snag them up. They wouldn't be able to sub in another competing range weapon because they did not have the pimpin' money rolls to do it with. There was no mystical English hoodoo going on and restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

I think you missed Agema's point here. He also said that the English didn't have other range weapons to sub in. Money was a big part of this.

Longbows are cheaper than crossbows, and a trained man can load a longbow faster than he can a crossbow. If your goal is to fire as many arrows/bolts into the enemy army fast, longbows do it better than crossbows, both because their rate of fire is better and because they are cheaper, ergo you can afford more longbowmen.


As far as I know, there was no other cheap ranged weapon that could fire at a comparable distance, in the time period we are talking about. If longbow is the only such weapon, then the English couldn't have used the tactic of massed archers with anything but the longbow. I can't see anything wrong with this logic. Unless you know something I don't, that means longbows really were the superior choice, for this single instance.

...restricting the discussion to Europe seems a bit odd given the setting of the game pulls from everywhere.

We are not talking about longbows and crossbows in this game, but about their historical usage. Since we're talking about how the English used their longbows, we should talk about the time and place they used the longbows in.

And the crossbow is not as "slow" as you think it is. For one you have to realize the inherent advantages of a missile weapon held in such a manner allowed a greater frontage. The man in front can lower his profile giving the men behind clear sight. This also allows multiple ranks to take turns ensuring a continuous and more cohesive stream of missiles.

This sounds more like something from the period when firearms and rank-fighting were in use. To my knowledge, crossbows were never used like this, but I could be wrong. Can you post any example? It's an intriguing image, and I'd be interested in reading more about it.

So how is the guy gonna get around his buddy? If the target is too close and he aims up a little bit he'll over shoot. If he trys to go way high up he is likely to miss. And not to mention he's doing this without being able to see past his buddy's pumpkin head. So he can't even get a rough idea on how to adjust following shots. Combine this with what I've said before and the rate of shooting of the longbow is no where near the kind of efficacy that you think it is.

Actually, if the arrows is fired higher up it will come down nearer to the archer, not farther away. It took me some time to find the term, but "clout shooting" or "clout practice" describes the act of firing inside an area marked on the ground. With enough practice, a longbowman would at least be less likely to miss, especially if he wasn't aiming at a lone soldier but, say, a group of cavalry.

I don't know how longbowmen were stationed in the battlefield, but of course they couldn't be stationed so close to each other that they wouldn't have space to fire or aim. However, since the weapon has rather long range, it isn't necessary. It would make defending an army or longbowmen more difficult than an army of crossbowmen, since the longbowmen would cover a larger area. However, as I said above, crossbows couldn't be massed (by English) in such numbers any way.

Producing many archers has been done before. Again there is nothing special about the Welsh/English longbow comparative bows are found elsewhere in Europe there is no extra power that it has.

There have been other armies that used huge amounts of archers, and longbows have been used by specialized hunters (and the like) in other places. The proper question is, has anyone else ever trained an army of longbowmen?

It is an interesting question, for two reasons:
1) If longbows are so useful, why didn't anyone else do it?
2) If they aren't superior weapons, why did the English do it?

I think the second question has been answered in this thread: for the English, it was cheaper and/or more efficient to mass longbows than other similar weapons, like crossbows.

Now the question becomes, why did they need so many archers? I found someone who thought it was because archers were good against CAVALRY, not infantry. Arrows would kill and/or wound unarmored horses, and the presence of longbowmen would force the French to dismount. It was just one person and he didn't cite any sources, so make of that what you will.